Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LLOYD'S BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 28 January.

HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday 28 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Liquor Licensing (Erroll Committee Report)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce measures to implement the Erroll committee's report on liquor licensing.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): The Government have at present no plans for further legislation in this area.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are a great many anomalies in that area and that the law is completely out of date? Does the Home Office ever intend to do anything about those anomalies and to bring the law up to date?

Mr. Raison: There is a widespread feeling that the law contains some anomalies. On the other hand, the plain fact is that there is also a good deal of concern about the extent of heavy drinking, particularly among the young. We feel that it is difficult to move forward unless there is a substantial consensus about what should be done.

Mr. Paul Dean: I recognise the problems of alcohol abuse in a small minority, but will my right hon. Friend recognise that the present outdated laws do nothing to encourage sensible drinking and are a considerable handicap to the holiday and tourist industries? Will he at least consider a modest reform on the lines of the one recently introduced in Scottish law, which appears to be working satisfactorily?

Mr. Raison: As I have said, I recognise that there are anomalies in and criticisms of the present law. I also recognise that the results of the change in Scottish law so far have not been unsatisfactory. However, I repeat that this is an area where there are still a good many problems. We want to move ahead with as much agreement as possible.

Television Licence Fee

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given further consideration to achieving a fair distribution of the burden of the level of television receiver licence fees payable by commercial and other collective undertakings, including hotels, following his statement of 1 December.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a statement about his policy on television licence fees payable by hotels.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have not completed my consideration of the issues involved, but hope soon to invite the comments of interested parties on proposals relating to the licensing of television in hotels.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he comment further, however, on the hint in his December statement that he regarded it as wrong that individual old-age pensioners and other consumers have to pay the same fee as commercial undertakings that have one licence regardless of the number of sets, and that changes would be made in such cases?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have agreed with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade, Scotland and Wales to consult the interested parties. Matters concerning the tourist trade are involved. I hope to complete those considerations soon.

Mr. Ford: Next time licence fees are increased, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Post Office plays the game by not ceasing the issue of stamps before the effective date and by taking account of those who, for reasons beyond their control, have been unable to pay the licence fee within a day or two of the effective date?

Mr. Whitelaw: It was generally accepted in the House that the new licence fee would operate for a three-year period. An increase will not, therefore, arise for a considerable time. I hope that all the arrangements that I sought to make on that occasion have obviated some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If they have not, I shall look at them again.

Mr. Brotherton: When my right hon. Friend makes up his mind on this problem, will he bear in mind seaside resorts, where many of the hotels and holiday camps are open for only three, four or five months a year? If he decides to implement a licence fee for each room, will he ensure that such a fee is based on the number of months that such places are open?

Mr. Whitelaw: Those are all part of the considerations that we must have in mind. We must consider whether there should be a fee for every television set in every room and how it might be paid. I am prepared to discuss those matters with all the interested parties. I take my hon. Friend's point that we must consider the tourist trade and the many people in the tourist resorts who at present are going through a difficult time.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says that he proposes to consult interested parties. May we have an assurance that he will not simply consult those who have an interest in there being no licence fee for commercial


undertakings? Is he aware that several million families have an interest in not subsidising commercial undertakings?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am prepared to consider these matters. I know how the BBC feels about the matter. As representative of those who pay the licence fee to it, the BBC would like to see such a proposal come forward, as the working party showed. I shall consider all these factors. At the same time, we must be reasonably fair to the industries concerned. It must be remembered that whatever they give would not materially affect the licence fee paid by others.

Shops Act 1950

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to complete his review of the Shops Act 1950.

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to make the statement on shop hours, which was promised in his replies to questions by the hon. Member for Flint, West, Official Report 7 May, c. 259, and Official Report 30 July, c. 464.

Mr. Raison: Our examination of the shop hour restrictions in the Shops Act 1950 is now complete and my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement very soon.

Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. Is he aware that, as the Act stands, church bookstalls that sell bibles to churchgoers on Sunday are breaking the law? Will he commit himself now to introducing amending legislation to avoid such farcical situations?

Mr. Raison: I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes about bibles. I am also aware of many other oddities and anomalies in the legislation. I cannot make a commitment to introduce new legislation. The problem is lack of consensus about what should be done.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I congratulate him on his promotion—that, after all this time, it is absurd for the Home Office to shelter behind the absence of any consensus? Is it not for the Home Office to give a lead?

Mr. Raison: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.
My hon. Friend accuses the Home Office of failing to give a lead. It has been the tradition in matters of this kind that we can best move forward with widespread agreement. My hon. Friend will remember that a debate on his Bill last year failed to produce anything remotely resembling agreement between the two sides.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister assuring the House that at long last there is to be a radical amendment of the 1950 Act to get rid of the absurdities that it contains and to allow traders to trade on a Sunday? At the moment, a do-it-yourself shop cannot open on a Sunday but a garden centre can. These absurdities make a mockery of the law. Is the right hon. Gentleman assuring the House that the Home Office now intends to act?

Mr. Raison: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurance that we will act. I would, however, point out that the House will shortly debate a Bill

introduced by one of my hon. Friends, and the other place will debate a Bill proposed by Baroness Trumpington. Both will give opportunities for Members of the two Houses to express their views on the matter.

Recidivism

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent recidivism among those in prison shows any marked change over the past five years.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The distribution of receptions into prison department establishments did not change markedly with respect to previous convictions over the period 1976 to 1980. Studies of the rate of reconviction after two years of those discharged between 1973 and 1977 show some increase for borstals and detention centres but no appreciable change for young or adult prisoners.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the recidivism rate is running at about 60 per cent.? If so, does it not underline Mr. Justice May's remark that a prison sentence today is not likely to do much to reform the criminal? If so, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a strong case for the Home Office to set up an inquiry into ways in which imprisonment can be made a more effective deterrent against returning to prison.

Mr. Mayhew: The recidivism, or reconviction, rate after two years varies according to the age and the sex of prisoners. One of the uses and purposes of prison is to protect the public from a further offence by that prisoner, at least during the period the sentence is served. The Home Office research unit undertakes inquiries of this kind and will consider suggestions by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The question refers to the increase in recidivism over the past five years. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the increase in reconviction rates for young offenders over the past five years has been especially disturbing, not least the increase from 63 to 69 per cent. in reconviction to borstal training, from 64 to 68 per cent. in young prisoners and, most disturbing and alarming, from 59 to 68 per cent. to detention centre training? As the Criminal Justice Bill may mean that more young offenders end up in detention centres, does the Minister agree that there is perhaps a case for making statutory criteria to cover circumstances under which an offender may be sent to a detention centre?

Mr. Mayhew: Statutory criteria already govern the power of courts to send young offenders to detention centres. The increase in reconviction of young offenders is worrying. Without accepting the figures that the hon. Gentleman gives—I am not saying that they are not right—I agree that it is a matter of concern. There is, however, a need for a power to detain in custody young offenders who are capable of causing considerable harm to other members of the community.

Detention Centres

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the outcome of the short, sharp shock regime in detention centres.

Mr. Whitelaw: In the light of our experience of operating the tougher regimes at New Hall and Send, last September I extended the project to two other centres. A programme to evaluate the tougher regimes pilot project in the four centres is proceeding, but the results will not be available until next year.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever the pained views of the so-called experts, stern regimes of this kind have widespread public support? Will he bear that in mind in his review?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. It was because the first two regimes seemed to be working well that we decided upon two further regimes. I believe that they will prove their worth.

Dr. Summerskill: As, under the Criminal Justice Bill, the House is asked to endorse the perpetuation of detention centres, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the new regimes at New Hall and Send were set up as long ago as April 1980? About 1, 000 boys have now come out of those institutions under the new regime. They have been out for almost a year. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore examine the reconvicion rates among those boys and give some information about how the short, sharp shock experiment is working?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. I should have to compare the reconviction rates in other detention centres. I should like to bring forward the pilot project very quickly. I believe that it would prove—perhaps not for the first time—that what the Government are seeking to do is right and that the hon. Lady's criticisms are wrong.

Data Protection

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now intends to issue a White Paper on data protection.

Mr. Raison: We hope to be able to publish a White Paper on this subject soon.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about what he means by "soon"? Will he recognise that any body, whether an ombudsman or an authority, set up to look after data protection, must be completely independent of the Home Office, itself a major holder of data? Is he aware that the Home Office must not be seen to be judge and jury in its own cause on this issue?

Mr. Raison: I am afraid that I cannot say more about how soon is "soon". I recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's second point. I put it to him that there are two aspects. One is who brings forward the legislation and any subsequent orders. The other is who is responsible for keeping the register that we envisage and for policing. Those may be different aspects. I am aware of the strong feeling in favour of an independent register.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that delay in this area has serious implications for British and European industrial interests and that there must be a free interchange of computer data?

Mr. Raison: I understand and agree with my hon. Friend's point. We have signed the convention. We are trying to push ahead as quickly as possible with the legislation that will enable us to ratify it.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any review or White Paper will take into consideration the passing by British Telecom to third parties for investigative purposes of computer information on the personal records of the use of private telephone lines? Will he liaise with the Secretary of State for Industry to confirm that section 50 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 is an adequate safeguard in this respect?

Mr. Raison: I can give that assurance.

Mr. Allan Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be a distinction between the monitoring and scrutiny of data collected by commercial organisations for their profit and that collected by the State in the interests of national security?

Mr. Raison: Under the Council of Europe convention, certain exceptions are permitted, and they lie in the realm of national security.

Police Training Establishments

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation scheme of domestic services in police training establishments.

Mr. Mayhew: Contracts have been let for the provision by the private sector of housekeeping, catering and security services at three Home Office residential training establishments, including the police training centres at Bruche and Chantmarle, from 1 April 1982. Studies are in hand of the scope for privatisation at other Home Office residential training establishments.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the complete opposition expressed to this policy by the 10 counties which constitute the North-Eastern police authority committee? Would it not mean a loss of yet more jobs? Are the trade unions being consulted? Is it a fact—I gather from what the Minister said that it may be—that the policy is being extended to other Home Office residential establishments? Why do not the Government abandon such nonsense and solve the real problems of the country?

Mr. Mayhew: The answer is because savings of a substantial order have already been identified in the three establishments to which I have referred—£300, 000 annually in those three. The trade unions and all other interested parties are being consulted. About 160 Civil Service posts are being saved in the three establishments, but in two of those the greater part of the jobs being offered by the private contractor have already been offered to existing staff. There are proposals to extend the scheme but these are in the study stage at present.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. and learned Friend invite all those who oppose privatisation to visit Southend-on-Sea where, by a policy of privatisation, we managed to cut our rates last year and save the ratepayers £500, 000?

Mr. Mayhew: I should think that that would be a salutary experience for all those who oppose privatisation. They really have to explain why the taxpayer should pay for jobs that are not needed and can be carried out more economically by the private sector.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister bear in mind, with specific reference to Southend, that as a result of the


problems during the winter the wonderful scheme that was set up under a privatised system there has now run into the same sort of trouble as all local authorities encounter with their direct labour forces when they have to combat the kind of weather that we have been having? Is he aware that the private contractors have submitted to the council another massive bill that was not included in the original estimate?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is not true.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was inviting those who opposed privatisation to pay a visit to Southend, which would be an agreeable experience for any purpose. I do not doubt that if it snows in Southend that must cause equal difficulties to those caused when it snows in Derbyshire. There is, of course, a different Member of Parliament.

Maintenance Defaulters (Imprisonment)

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held in prisons in England and Wales for maintenance arrears.

Mr. Mayhew: On 30 November 1981, the latest date for which figures are available, about 180 persons were in prison department establishments in England and Wales following committal by magistrates' courts for non-payment of maintenance or affiliation orders.

Mr. Freud: Has the Minister looked with sufficient care at non-custodial alternatives to prison for maintenance defaulters, and has he considered ordering them to work in the privatised prison system?

Mr. Mayhew: Without prison as a last resort, many more wives and children simply will not get the money to which they are entitled unders orders that have been made. That was accepted by the Labour Government, and the present Government also believe that it is so. A very small proportion of those against whom enforcement proceedings are taken end up in prison. That is because prison represents a substantial compulsion in the end.

Mr Latham: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the general state of the law on maintenance? If not, does he have any alternative proposals to put before the House in the light of recent publications of the Law Commission?

Mr. Mayhew: Not this afternoon.

Dr. Summerskill: A custodial sentence for a maintenance defaulter may have been accepted by the Labour Government, but it is not accepted by the present Labour Opposition. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that we are progressing in our thinking in moving from custodial sentences to non-custodial sentences, and that we are not, like the present Government, living in the past? I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his answer. It costs £7, 000 a year to keep somebody in prison. The prisons are vastly overcrowded, and it is time that maintenance defaulters were not kept in custody.

Mr. Mayhew: I guess that 25 million women in this country would be interested to know that the present Labour Opposition, as distinct from the Labour Government, do not think it right that there should be the final sanction of prison. Already the courts have to be

satisfied that the default was due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay. If the Labour Party is moving away from its previous position, that will be a matter of great interest and dismay to many women.

Citizens Band Radio

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the revenue from licences issued for citizens band radio.

Mr. Raison: Just over £1 million by 31 December 1981.

Mr. Miller: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his appointment to the Privy Council, may I say that I hope that he will not think it churlish if I suggest that it is not entirely due to his work on citizens band radio. We were very grateful for his giving freedom of the air to citizens band practitioners, but will he agree that the revenue figure he has just announced would be greatly increased if the licence did not restrict the user to the frequency chosen by the Home Office, which renders its use illegal in all other countries of Europe and takes no account of the many pre-existing users of the AM frequency who, if they all transferred to his chosen frequency, would cause it to be grossly overcrowded?

Mr. Raison: I am not quite sure how to take my hon. Friend's congratulations, but I thank him for his remarks. If we went down the path of legalising AM, which is what seems to be implied in his question, there might be more licence revenue, but there would be a great deal of additional interference. The problem in this area is interference with television sets and essential services, and we do not believe that that is tolerable.

Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Post Office is trying hard enough to track down the people operating illegal sets, which are causing interference and making life hell for their neighbours?

Mr. Raison: I think that the Post Office is trying hard, but there is still excessive interference. I am happy to note that there was a considerable drop between September and December. I hope that that will continue now that a legal service is available, but we are likely to have to bring in new and tighter legislation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that only 100, 000 licences have been issued? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Trade to discover how many FM sets have been imported over the last six months, to see whether there is any correlation? Will he reconsider the cost of a licence, which at £10 exceeds what many reasonable people feel to be a sensible figure?

Mr. Raison: I do not think that 100, 000 licences in the two months of November and December is a bad or disappointing figure.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister consider the meanness of his right hon. Friend concerning concessionary television licences and take steps to provide concessionary CB licences for those to whom his right hon. Friend will not give a concessionary television licence?

Mr. Raison: I do not think that television licences are covered by this subject and I doubt whether there are many old-age pensioners who would want CB licences.

Prison Population

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population on 1 January 1982 in England and Wales.

Mr. Whitelaw: About 40, 800, following the normal seasonal reduction during December.

Mr. Cox: Is the Home Secretary aware of the annual reports of the prison boards of visitors? If so, does he read them often? Is he aware that they refer to the enormous problems that overcrowding is causing in our prisons? As it now costs over £7, 000 a year to keep a person in prison, when will the Home Secretary start to take out of our prison system many of the people who should never have been put there in the first place? Does he agree that the removal of such people would begin to lead to a constructive development in the prison system?

Mr. Whitelaw: Of course I see the reports by the boards of visitors. If the hon. Gentleman had been present at our debate yesterday and on previous occasions he would have heard some of the proposals for the prison service and what we seek to do about the prisons. I claim that this Government have done more about improving prisons, about prison building and many other matters than has been done for a long time. The number of people in prison at the end of 1979 was almost exactly the same as it is today. There has been no substantial increase in numbers compared with the numbers in previous years under Labour Governments.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the public are concerned about our stand on law and order? In spite of it being difficult for prison officers to manage with overcrowding, is it not perhaps a bonus that it is uncomfortable in prison? Does not that, perhaps, dampen the enthusiasm of people who may be inclined to commit crimes?

Mr. Whitelaw: Of course the British people are concerned about the rise in crime, as are people all over the world. The British people are extremely concerned about violent crime in particular. Of course it is necessary for people who commit many such crimes to receive custodial sentences—and some should receive long custodial sentences. That is the purpose of the prisons. It is the purpose of some of my proposals to start a proper prison building programme and to spend money on maintaining and improving existing prisons.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Home Secretary recall the statement on 2 December by the prison and borstal governors, who said that if compulsory cell sharing and slopping out were abolished and decent minimum standards provided, not only for prisoners but for prison staff, the prison population would have to be reduced to 32, 000? Will the Home Secretary, therefore, look favourably on amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill aimed at introducing either supervised release or conditional release, both of which would reduce the prison population substantially?

Mr. Whitelaw: Such matters can be argued during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. I have made my position and my doubts about supervised release very clear and they will be made clear again during proceedings on that Bill. The prison system is there to serve the interests of the whole criminal justice system and not, as

some people seem to think occasionally, the reverse. The prison system ensures that custodial sentences are available for people who need to be in prison for the protection of British citizens. That is a very important factor when considering the prison system.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend explain or amplify a remark that he made earlier? Why is there a seasonal reduction in the prison population at Christmas?

Mr. Whitelaw: Traditionally that has always been so. Traditonally there is also a sharp rise in the prison population during November. Last year that sharp rise did not occur. It is too early, therefore, to make any predictions about the future or about whether the fact that the prison population has decreased considerably from the high level of last summer is a trend resulting from shorter sentences. Nobody can tell at present and I make no predictions. The trend is about the same as it has been for several years.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary said that the prisons must accommodate people who need to be there for the protection of other citizens. Is he aware that that is common ground across the Floor of the House and throughout the country? Is he aware that the dispute is about who needs to be in prison to provide that protection? If the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman proposed yesterday does become law he will be able to release from prison vagrants, the mentally inadequate, women convicted of soliciting and habitual drunks. Does he intend to release such people or does he think that their imprisonment is necessary for the safety of other people?

Mr. Whitelaw: We have taken various steps in relation to drunks, for example. I have taken steps recently, following the Private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), to see whether we can get drunks out of prison. I am keen to take such categories of people out of prison, but we must remember a matter that has been laboured, that eventually persistent fine defaulters must be put in prison. Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I should like the other categories of prisoners which he mentioned to be removed from prison, but he would be the first to agree that, even if they were removed, the reduction in the prison population would be extremely small.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of violence were made known to the police in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and by what percentage this total differs from the comparable total five years previously.

Mr. Mayhew: The number of offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1980 was 97, 000–37 per cent. more than the corresponding figure in 1975. For the more serious offences, those of wounding or other act endangering life, the number recorded in 1980 was about the same as in 1975.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the worrying increase in violent crime and the need to impose adequate penalties, may we have a clear assurance that the Minister will not seek to


use the six-month amnesty powers in the Criminal Justice Bill to provide for the early release of people convicted of violent crime? Does he agree that there is not much point in urging courts to send rapists and others to prison if the Criminal Justice Bill is to be used to let them out?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes. I say that without any equivocation. Clause 26 of the Criminal Justice Bill provides fallback powers in the event of the prison population, for one reason or another, becoming unmanageable. Such powers could be exercised only with the approval of Parliament and under the close control of Parliament. My right hon. Friend has no intention of using the powers for the release of violent prisoners.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Minister explain what he means by a crime of violence? Does it include mugging? Does it include the case reported on the radio this morning of a young married mother in Toxteth who was set about by a gang of thugs—vicious brutes—who held a knife over her baby and threatened to slash the baby's face unless she handed over her money? Is that a crime of violence?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes.

Mr. Stokes: If Her Majesty's Government do not intend to introduce either capital punishment or corporal punishment for crimes of violence, which most people in the country want, how can they convince the public that their lesser measures are successful, in the light of the figures that we have just been given?

Mr. Mayhew: The question of capital punishment is one for the House and it pronounced upon it in 1979. The opportunity for the House to do that was promised in our manifesto. The Government are deeply concerned about the rise in crime, as is the country. The rise in violent crime in particular causes us anxiety. We must all consider how best to proceed to provide protection for our citizens.
Two committees have considered corporal punishment. The view expressed was that corporal punishment did not provide a particularly effective deterrent when it was part of our law, and it was abolished in 1948.

Street Crime (Brixton)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether street crime has increased in Brixton since the ending of the riots; and if so, by what extent.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that it is not possible separately to identify those recorded crimes which occurred in the street. Figures are available, however, for incidents of stealing involving offences of the type that are most likely to occur in the street. The total number of such offences recorded in the Brixton police division was about one-fifth higher in the first six months following the April disturbances than in the corresponding period in 1980.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the public in Brixton and other parts of the country that the law will be applied with equal vigour and force and the citizens protected with equal vigour and force in all parts of the country, whatever the social sensitivities, whatever the cultural backgrounds and whatever the racial backgrounds that exist? Does he agree that if that were not the case nothing could be more damaging to the prospects of good race relations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I entirely agree with that, and I should like to add only that the purpose of closer collaboration between local communities, local councils and the police must be to protect citizens and, therefore, to assist the proper policing of those areas. That is the purpose of the discussions and it should be understood to be so.
As the police authority for London, I had a meeting last week with many representatives from the Brixton area and I shall be having another meeting in a fortnight. We are proceeding on the basis of close collaboration between all concerned. I found at the meeting a widespread determination by locally elected representatives and many others to work together to help the police protect citizens in the area. That is the purpose of such discussions all over the country and this is an important moment to make clear that that is what is needed and that that is what we shall seek to do.

Mr. Tilley: As one who was at the meeting mentioned by the Home Secretary, may I pay tribute to the efforts that he has made to get effective police-community liaison in Lambeth? May I assure him that the Opposition are deeply concerned about street crime, but add that we do not go along with the implication of the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to the effect that for the police to seek better liaison with local communities is an alternative to dealing with crime? To us it is an essential part of an effective crime prevention policy.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the meeting and to him and his colleagues from the area for the help that they have given to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself in arranging the meeting. I confirm that it is the purpose of all such meetings and contacts between the police and the community to ensure that we afford proper protection to our citizens. That must mean proper policing of the area.

Mr. Christopher Price: In relation to Brixton and Lord Scarman's report, will the Home Secretary repudiate the words of Mr. James Jardine yesterday to the effect that the police will refuse to operate the central recommendation of the Scarman report that racist behaviour should normally be a ground for dismissal?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not part of my job to go round repudiating this person or that. I regard my job as being to press forward with the various improvements that Lord Scarman proposed, as I have done in discussions with the community and in many other ways. I wish to take advantage of Lord Scarman's report to improve relations between the police and the community, always bearing in mind the need to protect our citizens.

Television Licence Fee

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pensioners are exempt from paying the full television licence; how many pay the full charge; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is estimated that about 500, 000 pensioners qualify for the special 5p old persons' home licence, and about 4½ million households comprising one or two pensioners pay the full licence fee. For the reasons given during the debate on 16 December, I have no plans to introduce concessions for pensioners generally.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Home Secretary not aware that there is a clear anomaly between the 500, 000 pensioners who get a 5p licence, those who get assistance from a number of local authorities, and the rest who have to pay the full licence fee? The Government stole 90p a week from pensioners by not raising the pension in line with inflation, and that is just about equivalent to the cost of a television licence. I hope that the Home Secretary is not coming along—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to call another question.

Mr. Skinner: I am just practising from this new seat.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked enough questions.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to comment on the hon. Gentleman's new seat or the reasons for his move. We debated the matter in December and I have nothing further to add.

Police (Complaints)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the inquiry by Lord Belstead into the procedure for complaints against the police will be completed.

Mr. Whitelaw: My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State chaired a working group of the Police Advisory Board, the report of which is to be considered at a meeting of the board on 26 January. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has since begun an inquiry into police complaints and related matters and I shall wish to take into account its report before bringing forward proposals for change.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Home Secretary aware that many people will be pleased that the board is meeting on 26 January to make a report, but will regret that the Home Secretary seems to be using the Select Committee as an excuse to put off the introduction of legislation? Is it not time that we got fresh legislation on police complaints before the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a classic example of how one cannot do right. If I had produced legislation while the Select Committee was considering the matter, the hon. Gentleman and the House would say that I had treated the Committee in a most disgraceful way, and was disregarding Parliament and paying no attention to it. Because I act in the opposite way, I am told that I ought to bring forward legislation. I believe that what I am doing is the right way of proceeding.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State reassure the House by saying that, at least provisionally, he is clear in his mind that in future there ought to be an independent element in the investigation of complaints and not only in their determination?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to say "Yes" and I should like equally to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that it would be appropriate for me to start again. I intend to bring forward legislation as soon as we can get agreement and, if possible, through the Select Committee. I want to get legislation on the subject and to carry forward the proposals that the hon. Gentleman has put to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is six months since the disturbances in Liverpool, and that there is every sign that tensions are growing in the city again? What action will be taken to reduce the high level of unemployment, running at nearly 50 per cent. in my constituency, and what can be done to restore the £23½ million of Government funds that have been lost to Liverpool city council in the past two years?

The Prime Minister: Substantial progress has been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his task force in securing the co-operation of private companies to help him in redeveloping the inner city. I understand that commercial business training centres have been set up, sponsored by the financial institutions and Unilever, in Liverpool, Birkenhead and Huyton. More than 11, 000 YOP traineeships have been made available by local industry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take up the question of rate support grant allocations with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend had time during her busy day to read the remarks reportedly made by the magistrate at Highbury court to a teacher—Miss Puttock—who was attempting to bring an action for assault against a parent? She was told that she could expect to be similarly assaulted at least six times in the next 20 years. Does not my right hon. Friend think that that is disgraceful and that the remarks should be withdrawn immediately, otherwise the whole system of school discipline will be undermined?

The Prime Minister: I saw the report to which my hon. Friend refers. Frankly, I found it so utterly astonishing, as did my hon. Friend, that I thought that the first thing to do was to find out the facts. The Lord Chancellor's Department has therefore sent officials to seek to find out precisely what was said, and I think that we should withhold comment until we find out.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Lady had a chance of raising with the Cabinet the question that she raised in her new year broadcast, when she said that she had only been restrained from adopting tougher measures of public expenditure by her colleagues and Parliament? Will she specify to us some of those measures and the effect that she thinks they would have had on the level of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked a similar question last week, and I will give him the same answer that I gave last week. If one wants more capital expenditure, as a number of us do, it can be obtained only by restraining current expenditure and, in particular, by ensuring that more and more money does not go to increased pay awards in the public sector for the same


amount of work. Otherwise, the only way to get extra capital expenditure is to increase tax or the interest rate on borrowing, neither of which is desirable.

Mr. Foot: It is true that I put the same question to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, but I did not get an answer and I have not had one yet. The right hon. Lady suggested that there were tougher expenditure cuts that she would like to have introduced. Is she really suggesting that the non-introduction of them is the cause of our economic difficulties? If she had cuts in mind, what were they?

The Prime Minister: I have just mentioned one. It is absolutely vital to keep down pay in the public sector, otherwise more money goes to the public sector for the same amount of work—money that could easily go to ordering equipment and capital goods to create more, not fewer, jobs.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: With regard to the recent report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Royal Bank of Scotland, does the Prime Minister appreciate that there are wide and respected sections of Scottish commercial opinion that are gravely worried about the content, calibre and recommendations of the report, and which believe that it should have been rejected by the Government because of the damage that its implementation will do nationally for Scotland and internationally for the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware that there are differing views about the report. As I pointed out to the House on Tuesday, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission itself differed on its recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has made his decision, and it must stand. I therefore make it absolutely clear that this decision is not a precedent for anything else. It refers only to this application and must not be taken as applying to any other similar applications in Scotland or elsewhere. It is unique to this application. I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, but we need competition and the benefit from it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Allaun: In the course of her busy day—to coin a phrase—will the Prime Minister reconsider her Government's plan to raise council house rents compulsorily by £2·50 a week, in addition to two previous increases? While it may seem nothing to the eight millionaires in the Cabinet—[Interruption]. There were 10, but the right hon. Lady got rid of two. Is she aware that for most of the 6 million council house tenants and their families it means going without something else and that it can bring heartbreak and domestic tragedy to them?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we took office council house rents met only 47 per cent. of council housing costs. That meant that 53 per cent. had to be found from elsewhere, and a great deal from rates, which also fall on all householders. It seems reasonable that those who are in council houses should pay a reasonable rent, and I am sure that most of them would not wish to rely on others to meet subsidised rents. Housing rents have indeed been raised, but at present they do not constitute more than 10 or 11 per cent. of average earnings.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Cabinet currently considering again the Trident missile project? If so, can the Prime Minister confirm that the estimated costs have now greatly exceeded the figure of £5 billion that was originally reported to the House? If that is so, will the Cabinet take on board the fact that, in addition to the re-motoring of Polaris, that is bound to have a distorting effect on public expenditure in general, and on the conventional defence budget in particular?

The Prime Minister: We took a decision to go for Trident. The question now is whether we should take a decision to go for an even more advanced Trident. So far, no further decision has been taken. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said, the expenditure of this money secures a far greater degree of deterrence than expenditure of the same amount of money on ordinary conventional armaments. My right hon. Friend has frequently used that argument at this Dispatch Box. The expenditure would be roughly the same as for the Tornado programme.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Reverting to the case of the woman teacher, will my right hon. Friend confirm that any such proposition, if corroborated, is wholly contradictory to the principle of the rule of law? Drawing on her previous distinguished practice at the Bar—

Mr. Skinner: Annie's Bar.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: —and her recollections thereof, will she confirm, for the comfort and reassurance of the teaching profession, that a citizen in such circumstances is not left without remedy, because it is possible to make a direct application to the Divisional Court for a writ of mandamus to compel a hearing?

The Prime Minister: I obviously cannot improve on my right hon. and learned Friend's legal maxims. I am making no comment on that proposition—on its truth or otherwise. I can only say that any such proposition would be wholly and utterly repugnant to British law. Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and anyone who flouts it must be brought to justice.

Mr. John Grant: May I refer the Prime Minister to her two answers relating to Highbury magistrates' court, which is in my constituency? The incident about which there have been complaints also took place in my constituency. It was an extraordinary incident. When the Lord Chancellor investigates it, will he also take into account the overall record of decisions of Highbury magistrates' court? It has a curious record, particularly in granting legal aid.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is rightly finding out all the facts. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.

Mr. McNally: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McNally: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider her approach to the rail dispute? I understand her reluctance to indulge in "beer and sandwiches" industrial relations, but does she not consider that there


comes a time in an industrial relations dispute when she could use her personal influence to try to relieve the British people of their suffering? Will she intervene?

The Prime Minister: No, I shall not intervene. ACAS remains fully engaged in discussions with the unions concerned and with British Rail. It is vital that we have an efficient and flourishing railway industry. The Government have allocated about £930 million in external financing for the railways this year, but in an efficient industry we must expect to have modern practices and reduce overmanning. It must be galling for some of those industries—such as the steel industry in the North-East—which have reduced their overmanning and become efficient to find that their products cannot be moved by British Rail because the drivers will not similarly update their working practices.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend also find time now to commend the ingenuity, determination and relative good temper with which many people have managed to travel into London in spite of the rail strike—including, incidentally, a gratifyingly high proportion of civil servants and other public employees? Does she not agree that many of those people are unlikely freely to return to

rail travel unless the strike ends soon? Is it not a fact that the longer the strike goes on, the more chance the ASLEF membership has of cutting its own throat?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the longer the strike goes on the more business British Railways will lose. The strike will put other people's jobs in jeopardy in British Rail, as it is already affecting other people in other industries. I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating people on the way in which they have grappled with the strike and managed to get into London, starting very early. Perhaps I should also congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the arrangements that they made for parking in the Metropolis.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to study the incredible case of the bugging of a public telephone kiosk in my constituency? Is she aware that the two men who were caught red-handed planting the device in the kiosk were travelling in a car on the protected list of the Home Office? Will she therefore arrange for an inquiry into the matter and for a statement to be made in the House?

The Prime Minister: I do not make any statements about these matters, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 JANUARY—Supply (9th allotted day): until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the need for Government action on higher fuel bills following the extreme weather conditions, and afterwards, a debate on the steel industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion relating to the Child Benefit (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations.
TUESDAY 26 JANUARY—Second Reading of the New Towns Bill. Remaining stages of the Transport (Finance) Bill.
Motion on the Rates Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 27 JANUARY—There Will be a debate on the employment situation on a Government motion.
THURSDAY 28 JANUARY—Supply (10th allotted day): a debate on an Opposition motion on the continued failure of Government economic policy.
FRIDAY 29 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I FEBRUARY—A debate on the first report from the Select Committee on Energy, Session 1980–81, on the new nuclear power programme, House of Commons Paper No. 114, and the relevant Government observations, Cmnd. 8317.
The House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget on Tuesday, 9th March.

Mr. Foot: I should like to put three matters to the Leader of the House. First, I thank him for persuading his colleagues to accept the plea which we have made frequently from these Benches for major debates on unemployment figures when they reach such a scale as they have now reached. I therefore thank the right hon. Gentleman for providing time on Wednesday. Naturally, we are eager to provide a Supply day, as we have done next Thursday. Of course, it would be quite impossible to have a debate on this matter without the Chancellor of the Exchequer having the opportunity to present his views on the subject. We are grateful to the Government for having agreed to such an arrangement. We are still of the opinion that the Secretary of State for Employment should make the statement on Tuesday, and we hope that the Government will still consider that.
The second matter that I wish to raise concerns the conduct of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I gather that he is to make a statement later today, but he has already made statements on the same subject to the press. I gather that the Prime Minister has already issued a reprimand to him today, but in my view the hon. and learned Gentleman should come to the House himself and apologise at once for what has occurred.
Thirdly, has the Leader of the House had a chance to study properly early-day motion 167? We should be happy if the Government were to provide time for a debate in the House on the matter. The motion is now attracting support from many sections of the House. The motion concerns the

right hon. Roy Jenkins. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will wish to read the motion, and give their approval to its proposition.
[That this House, noting the published discussion in The Sunday Times between the right honourable Roy Jenkins and the Glasgow chairman of the Social Democratic Party when the right honourable Roy Jenkins represented himself as an Englishman and only under pressure and with a plea to the Diety overcame his amnesia about his birth in Wales, urges Welsh Social Democratic Party honourable Members to issue a statement declaring that any man so masking his national identity is unfit to be a Parliamentary candidate in Wales or in Scotland.]

Mr. Pym: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks about the debate that I have arranged on Wednesday. It seemed appropriate that Government time should be provided at this stage of the year, and I was glad to do so. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this week about the announcement of the figures next week and in subsequent months.
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Solicitor-General for Scotland is that I am mindful of my responsibilities as Leader of the House towards every Member of the House and of the need for the House to be informed at the first opportunity on matters of public importance. That did not happen on this occasion. I regret it very much, and, as Leader of the House, I should like to apologise to the House for that. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House to await the statement that my hon. and learned Friend will make later.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's third question, I must tell him that I have seen the early-day motion. I am somewhat entertained by the background to it. I do not know why Roy Jenkins should be so reluctant to admit that he was born in Wales. After all, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is an Englishman who represents a Welsh seat, and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is an Englishman who enjoys an Irish name and represents a Welsh seat. I do not know what I am. I was born in Monmouthshire, which seems to be neither one thing nor the other. All I know is that at the end of the day there is a pretty good mix in the House of Commons and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to notice some of the lamentable and narrow-minded decisions of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, culminating in its recent decision on the Royal Bank of Scotland and treating Scotland as if it were a village shop? Does he accept that the time has come, bearing in mind the recent statement by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade that competition policy in this country is decided not by him but by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, for the House to consider the commission, its powers and remit, and the damage that it can do to competition in this country?

Mr. Pym: I do not deny that that would be an appropriate subject for a debate, but, as my hon. Friend will know, each reference to the commission raises individual issues with different circumstances, each requiring treatment on its merits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has a heavy responsibility in


reaching conclusions on these matters. As I said, it is an appropriate subject for a debate, but I cannot undertake to provide time in the foreseeable future for it. There are other ways in which the matter can be raised in the House, but I cannot provide time for it.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Leader of the House look at the technical arrangements that are being made for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet in Edinburgh? As a supporter of his initiative in this matter, I should like to know whether he is aware that it is essential that the calling notices to individual Members go out weeks in advance, and not just a day or two in advance, as appears to be happening?

Mr. Pym: This experiment is being tried as the result of a vote in the House. A majority of the House thought that it was right to try it. A number of questions have been asked in the House about the date and the subject matter. I hope that everyone is aware of what is to happen. However, I shall take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said and see whether there is anything wrong with the administrative arrangements. If there is, I shall try to put it right.

Mr. Edward du Cann: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government will make a formal reply to early-day motion 132 following his helpful observations and those of the Prime Minister on the matter? It has now been signed by the remarkable number of 287 right hon. and hon. Members:
[That this House approves the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Role of the Comptroller and Auditor General (1980–81, H.C. 115); and, in view of the all-party criticism of the Treasury response in the Debate on 30th November 1981, urges the Government to reconsider the views expressed in its White Paper (Cmnd. 8323) and to introduce legislation to allow proper accountability to the House of Commons.]

Mr. Pym: I cannot give a precise date, but I hope to do so within two or three weeks.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Has the Leader of the House seen the report in The Guardian today of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to appoint Mr. Montague Alfred chief executive of the Property Services Agency? As Mr. Montague Alfred is the former chairman of the BPC publishing group, and as it appears from the report that he accepts that there may be a conflict of interests in this appointment, will the Leader of the House assure us that next week there will a parliamentary statement on the appointment?

Mr. Pym: I cannot give that undertaking, but I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Keith Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report published today by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders on the plight of the young single homeless? Will he take time to read the report and consider whether it would be appropriate to make time available for a debate in the House?

Mr. Pym: I am sure that it is a subject worthy of debate, but my hon. Friend will probably have to find another way of raising such a debate, outside Government time, if he wishes to discuss the issue soon.

Mr. loan Evans: As the Budget is to be introduced earlier than usual this year and the Cabinet is to discuss its possible contents on Thursday, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in next Thursday's debate—confirm that the Budget will reduce unemployment and not increase it, as every Tory Budget so far has done in this Parliament?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman will have to await my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety this week about the future ownership of the new Central television company in the Midlands? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement in the House next week if the matter continues to be unsatisfactory, or if the Independent Broadcasting Authority appears not to be doing its duty?

Mr. Pym: I am prepared to pass on those views, but at this stage I should not like to say whether a statement would be appropriate.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: I thank the Leader of the House for the statement that was made on 22 December, on the multi-fibre arrangement. He will appreciate that the statement was made within hours of the agreement in Geneva and before hon. Members had had a chance to study the protocol. As the Council of Ministers is considering whether to sign the protocol on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Government should agree to sign it before the Select Committee on European Legislation &c. has had a chance to consider it and before hon. Members have had a chance to debate its contents? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that point in mind and arrange for a statement to be made next week?

Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and the Government have been as forthcoming as possible to the House throughout the negotiations and have made several statements. An international agreement is being negotiated and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the negotiations will continue next week. A further statement may well be necessary after that. However, the process by which the various countries reach agreement cannot be delayed or altered now. My right hon. Friend is trying to achieve the best possible arrangement for Britain.

Mr. Michael Latham: May I press my right hon. Friend about the unsatisfactory situation in the very loyal dependency of Gibraltar and about the great concern that has been expressed about the dockyard? If my right hon. Friend cannot make a statement next week, will he at least ensure that the Lord Privy Seal makes a statement on what took place between the Prime Minister and the Spanish Prime Minister at the recent meeting and on when the frontier will be open?

Mr. Pym: I shall pass on those views and consult my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Leader of the House aware that but for a story in The Guardian we should be unaware that the Government had embarked on a £1 billion programme of re-motoring Polaris missiles without any authority being given and without any debate in the House before the decision was taken? Therefore, will the Leader


of the House give an assurance that a debate will be held at the earliest opportunity on that and on the madcap expenditure proposed on Trident C4 or D5 missiles, with which the Government are apparently grappling?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's question shows that his knowledge of the subject is not as deep as he perhaps would like the House to think. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, there is nothing new, unusual or surprising about the matter.

Mr. Richard Body: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement early next week about the salaries of senior local government officials, given that today's edition of The Times reports that such officials seem to have secured salary increases averaging 100 per cent. in the past two years? If the report is true, does it not represent one more argument for reforming the system of local government finance, as the Government propose to do?

Mr. Pym: I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. John Silkin: Will the Leader of the House instruct someone from the Ministry of Defence to explain why no one has gone to Gibraltar and why—following the question asked by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)—no one on the Government Front Bench can explain to the House the views of the people of Gibraltar on the closure of Gibraltar's docks? Perhaps we could have a statement next week.

Mr. Pym: I shall add those representations to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) when I raise the issue with the Lord Privy Seal. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Office and the Government are aware of the views of Gibraltarians.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Given the serious financial situation facing the De Lorean Car Company in Belfast, the fact that £80 million of public money has been invested in the project, that 2, 000 jobs are at stake and that a decision is expected within the next seven days, will my right hon. Friend confirm that a statement will be made on the Floor of the House about the outcome of the present negotiations?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir. It may be appropriate for a statement to be made in due course. As my hon. Friend knows, it is public knowledge that discussions are going on and, of course, the outcome is as yet unknown.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing in their places if their questions are brief. If they are not, we shall have to move on.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate soon on the plight of local authorities, such as that of the city of Leicester, which is valiantly trying to provide housing, services and maintenance for those who need them most, despite the slashing cuts in revenue? In Leicester they amount to some £11 million. May we have a statement—if not from the right hon. Gentleman, from another Minister—accepting that that is the direct result of the Government's refusal to provide the necessary funds?

Mr. Pym: I should have thought that the debate on the rate support grant could provide that opportunity.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the dispute involving the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen looks like continuing for more than another week, will the Secretary of State for Transport make a statement on the effects of the dispute on the financing of British Rail? If possible, may we have a debate so that those who speak for ASLEF can explain why its members are making those who work 10 or 12-hour days spend longer travelling so that they can still get to work, in order to protect their 8-hour day?

Mr. Pym: I doubt whether that would be helpful. Governments of both parties usually find that when there are difficult industrial disputes that affect the country's economy it is, on the whole, helpful to be rather reticent about having debates and making public statements. However, I shall keep in mind my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 106 on the financing of the Health Service, which has been signed by 130 hon. Members?
[That this House draws attention to the thorough investigation carried out by the Royal Commission on the National Health Service and its resulting opinion that to alter the basis of the funding of the National Health Service to insurance or fees for service would be inequitable and uneconomical and is of the opinion that in order to get best value for money the National Health Service must continue to be funded out of general taxation; and therefore deplores as a waste of public resources the re-investigation of this subject by the Government and demands that they stop this unnecessary inquiry immediately.]
Given that the departmental inquiry is complete, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early statement, followed by a debate? The proposal could lead to a two-tier system—one for the privileged and the other for the majority, who cannot afford to pay?

Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still considering the report. In due course an announcement, and possibly a statement, will be made.

Mr. Barry Porter: Has my right hon. Friend had time this week to note the speech made by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the Earl of Gowrie, on the problems in Northern Ireland? There was some suggestion—explicit or implied—that a possible solution was dual nationality for citizens of the Republic and those of the Province? Will a statement be made at the earliest opportunity so that the Government can make it clear that that is not part of their policy?

Mr. Pym: A statement would not be appropriate. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers, including my noble Friend, are searching diligently for ways of solving the problems of the Province. They hope eventually to make some progress. A statement along the lines requested by my hon. Friend would not be helpful at present.

Mr. Jim Craigen: When do the Government intend to bring forward the rate support grant order for Scotland for approval by the House? Is it not hard


on local authorities to delay bringing forward the order for so long? May we have an assurance that we shall have more than the usual 90-minute debate on this important issue?

Mr. Pym: There will be a debate on this in the fairly near future. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, although I think that it is also true to say that the facts, figures and proposals are well known by local authorities in Scotland as well as by those in England and Wales. Nevertheless, I hope that a debate can be arranged fairly soon.

Mr. David Alton: Is the Leader of the House familiar with the terms of early-day motion 35:
[That this House notes that 27th June 1981 was the third anniversary of the confinement of seven Siberian Christians in the basement of the United States Embassy in Moscow following restrictions and oppression by the Soviet authorities; therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to continue to press for an end to violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights (1973) and the Helsinki Final Act (1975) by the Soviet authorities; reiterates its belief that all men and women should be free to worship without restriction; and therefore supports the group of Christians who are registering their protest at the Russian Embassy on the occasion of this anniversary.]
It concerns the plight of the seven Siberian Christians, two of whom are at present on hunger strike and whose condition is becoming critical. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter with his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and undertake that a statement will be made in this House on what action the British Government, perhaps like the Swedish Government, can take?

Mr. Pym: Again I doubt whether a statement is appropriate, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has the matter very much in mind.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to congratulate his hon. Friends who so rightly voted in support of the election of a good Socialist, Piet Dankert, as President of the European Assembly—perhaps the only vote for which we can congratulate them on their efforts?

Mr. Pym: I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman is so pleased.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important for a statement to be made on the consortium that was created to bail out Mr. Freddie Laker, who, although he was previously fully in line with Government policy on free enterprise and market forces, ended up by going to the Bank of England, complete with a pair of knee pads, asking Mother State to bail out his company? Does the Leader of the House agree that that is Government intervention on a grand scale and deserves a statement to the House?

Mr. Pym: Not next week, Sir.

Mr. Derek Foster: When may we expect a debate on the proposed new youth training scheme? Is the Leader of the House aware that many elements of that scheme, in particular the element of compulsion and the abysmally low allowance, are causing widespread anxiety, especially among young people and trade unions in the North of England?

Mr. Pym: It is a very far-reaching scheme, which I believe has a great deal to contribute in our present circumstances. I should like it to be debated, but I do not think that I shall be able to find a day in the reasonably near future. However, it would be a suitable subject for the Opposition to raise on a Supply day if they so decided.

Mr. Ron Brown: In view of the high cost of finding missing rally drivers and playboys, should not there be a full debate on the matter?

Mr. Skinner: What was the mechanic's name?

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the Leader of the House aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) raised a very important question relating to the appointment of Mr. Montague Alfred as chief executive of the Property Services Agency at a salary far higher than the Civil Service rate and in an unorthodox manner? Will he now respond to that question and arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement to the House about the possible conflict of interests involved in that appointment?

Mr. Pym: I said that I would discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend, and I shall do so.

Rape Case (Glasgow)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat a statement being made in another place by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
Before reading that statement, may I make a personal apology to the whole House? Certain remarks attributed to myself were reported in the press yesterday and repeated this morning. Any remarks that I made were made before matters developed to the point when it was obviously the wish of hon. Members that a statement should be made in Parliament about the case. If anything that I may have said showed any disrespect to the House, I wish to apologise unreservedly as that was furthest from my intention. I shall now read the statement.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a statement—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a statement on the case of alleged rape and serious assault in Glasgow which has been the subject of much recent comment.
In Scotland, the Lord Advocate is answerable to Parliament for the conduct of criminal prosecutions. It is, however, the practice not to divulge any details of the evidence in particular cases. This is intended for the protection of all the parties involved, and it is particularly important in the present case, where it is possible that the complainer may at some future date make an application to the High Court of Justiciary to bring a private prosecution; it is particularly important in these circumstances that nothing is said that might affect any such application, the interests of the complainer, or the interests of any persons who may be accused by her, and who under our legal system are entitled to the presumption of innocence. Subject to these restraints, I wish, however, to be as frank and open as possible about this matter to the House and to the public on account of the anxiety aroused by the case.
In this case the Procurator Fiscal, on receipt of information from the police, charged four youths with rape and with attempted murder. On reporting the case to Crown counsel in Edinburgh, they, in the exercise of their responsibility as independent prosecutors, indicted three of those youths with one charge of rape and one charge of assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement and danger to life. The case was put out for a sitting of the High Court in Glasgow in June 1981. When the victim appeared, it was apparent that she was not in a fit state to give evidence and on the instructions of Crown counsel she was examined by a consultant psychiatrist. In the interests of the woman, I would not wish to reveal the details of the report, save to say that her medical history since the events complained of caused the psychiatrist to conclude that a court appearance at that time would be detrimental to her health and carried a hazard of suicide both before and after the trial, whatever the result. Accordingly, the case was not called.
Thereafter the decision had to be taken whether the trial should be further postponed, or whether the Crown should proceed with the whole, or part of the indictment in the absence of the complainer's evidence, or whether the case

should be dropped altogether. In coming to that decision Crown counsel was principally influenced by the likely effect on her health of the prospect of having to give evidence.
Given that the complainer was not at that stage able to give evidence, the difficult decision arose whether on the remaining evidence available to the Crown the Crown should proceed with both or one of the charges. The view was taken by Crown counsel that in the light of all the circumstances in the absence of the complainer it would not have been proper to proceed on the whole or any part of the indictment.
With regard to obtaining the evidence of the complainer in the situation where she was not able to give her evidence in court, it has been suggested that her evidence could have been taken on commission under section 32 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. In terms of subsection (2)(b) of the section, the application to take evidence in this way may be granted only if the judge is satisfied that there will be no unfairness to the other party or parties. I am of the opinion that an application in this case to take the evidence on commission of the complainer would not have been granted.
In the light of the information available to him, Crown counsel considered that the prospect of sufficient improvement in the complainer's health to alter the situation was not enough to justify keeping the proceedings alive any further and, accordingly, instructions were given that the case should be dropped. Once that has been done in Scotland at the insistence of the Lord Advocate, no further prosecution at his instance is possible. Crown counsel exercise their independent professional judgment in coming to decisions on matters such as those I have referred to, but in cases of difficulty they may, and do, refer questions for his decision.
The Lord Advocate has decided to instruct that no decision to drop proceedings altogether in any case of murder or rape should be taken before the hearing of evidence has begun without the question being referred to him for decision.

Mr. Bruce Millian: We have just listened to a wholly unsatisfactory statement. This is an absolutely horrifying case. May I first of all pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) as the constituency MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and Scottish newspapers, particularly the Daily Record, for pursuing this matter with such persistence, because, without that, we would not have had a statement in this House at all.
I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has apologised for making a statement yesterday, but that is not the most serious part of his offence. When we had the first leak from the Crown Office, as presumably it was, as to why there had been no prosecution in this case, the grounds given were the mental health of the victim, and that is, of course, absolutely compatible with the statement that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has just read to us. However, what the hon. and learned Gentleman said yesterday, as quoted in the newspapers, is completely incompatible with what he has just said to us this afternoon. What he was quoted as saying yesterday, presumably accurately, is this:
There is no doubt in my mind that the matter of this unfortunate woman's mental stability was irrelevant.


Yet the whole of the statement this afternoon says that the reason why the prosecution has not gone ahead has been the condition of the victim herself. The hon. and learned Gentleman, as well as explaining why he said anything at all to the press yesterday, must explain to the House why he said what he did yesterday, because it is completely incompatible with what he said just now in his statement.
However, that is not the only unsatisfactory feature. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there have been statements by young people involved in this particular offence, quoted in full in the Daily Record? Is he aware that the woman herself has said to all the newspapers that she was perfectly willing to give evidence? Is he aware, therefore, that to the layman it looks as if there was a considerable amount of evidence available in this case which would certainly have justified a prosecution? Nothing that has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon will in any way allay the considerable public anxiety in Scotland on this matter.
The last sentence in the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement carries the implication—indeed, more than the implication—that it has actually been the practice up to the present time that murder charges, quite apart from rape charges, have been dropped altogether without reference to the Law Officers. I find that an extraordinary situation, calling into question the competence of the Crown Office and indeed the competence of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself.
Further, the reference to private prosecution is a complete red herring. As far as I am aware, there have been only three attempts made in the present century to bring a private prosecution on criminal matters. Two of them were rejected. The last succesful application for a private prosecution was in 1909. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman tells us this afternoon that this woman who is not apparently fit enough to give evidence in a normal public trial is potentially fit enough to bring a private prosecution.
That is absolute nonsense and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is. In one of the more recent attempts at a private prosecution, in the M'Bain case in 1961, when the prosecution was refused, what the Lord Justice General said, rather ironically in the light of recent events, was:
for such has become the public confidence in the decision of the Lord Advocate and his deputes on the grounds of prosecution that private prosecutions have almost gone into disuse.
I have to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that public confidence in the Law Officers and in the Crown Office is at a very low ebb indeed in Scotland at the present time. We certainly cannot allow this matter to rest on the basis of this statement this afternoon. What we demand is a full judicial inquiry into this extremely worrying and horrifying affair.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: May I make it absolutely plain to the House that I have never at any time said to anybody or held the view that the mental state of this woman was irrelevant. Her mental state was absolutely critical and it was in consideration of the interests of the woman, above all, that the decisions which were taken were taken. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that her health is still a matter of consideration and I do not wish to say or do anything that could affect it.
Turning to the next matter which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millian) raised, the question of her willingness to give evidence, I repeat that when she

turned up to give evidence she clearly was not capable of doing so. The psychiatric report is clear: she was in danger if she gave evidence. I do not wish to reveal her medical history. Furthermore, if she is now willing to give evidence, it will be recalled that the psychiatric view was that there was no prospect in the reasonably forseeable future that she would be able to give evidence without hazard to her health.
The next matter that was raised was that a murder trial can be dropped without reference to the Law Officers. It has frequently been the practice that in serious cases, particularly murder, before the charge is reduced on indictment from murder to a lesser charge or any lesser plea is accepted, these matters are discussed with the Law Officers. There are situations in which that may not always have been done, but in future it will be.
On the matter of private prosecution, I accept that the last case in which leave was granted was Coats v Brown in 1909, without the concurrence of the Lord Advocate, I may say, but that does not mean that the procedure is not active and available.
I am astonished that it may be that this unfortunate woman who underwent these terrible events wishes now to give evidence. All I can say is that Crown counsel, having to consider her health and her future in the light of her medical history, took the view that it would be improper to force her to give evidence at that time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow 20 minutes for questions on this statement, and then to move to the next business.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that those of us on the Conservative Benches share the horror and disgust over the circumstances that gave rise to this case in the first place? Does he agree that the disturbing factor is that the failure to fulfil the public interest was due not to an error in the administration of the law but to the limitations of the law itself? Does he agree that there is a case now for referring questions of rape to the Scottish Law Commission, so that it may look at the matter of evidence in rape trials to see whether rape victims can be further protected in the future?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not sure that I am willing to give that assurance. I have appeared in many cases involving this appalling crime. It is a very difficult matter, because the question of the victim's consent is critical to proof of the crime. The circumstances may vary in every way. Regrettably, I can see no circumstances in which one can say that the victim should not be put through a further ordeal in court, because I can see no way in which, out of fairness to those who are accused, one could conduct the trial in her absence.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Solicitor-General for Scotland must understand that to the layman it is extraordinary that if this poor wretched woman had died as a consequence of the assaults a case would have been brought without question, but because she was reduced, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, to such a condition by the assault that he and the Lord Advocate thought that she could not be in court, the people who did it go free. To the layman that seems incredible.
The media have been criticised. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in this case the media have


virtually acted as a review body and brought the matter to us? Can he assure us that if a private prosecution is brought the Crown Office will offer no impediment whatever?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if a private prosecution is brought the Crown Office will put no impediment whatever in the way of the complainer. The hon. Gentleman said that if the woman had died a prosecution could have been brought. I remind the House that if she had died no prosecution could have been brought for rape; the prosecution could have been brought only for murder. As I said in my statement, and as my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said in his statement, in the circumstances of this case, to try the attempted murder charge and not the rape charge, or to try both, in the absence of the complainer, was considered not to be a proper process. It is for that reason that it was decided by Crown counsel not to proceed with either.

Mr. David Marshall: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that this pathetic statement will not restore public confidence in the law? Was there an alleged confession? Was there an eye-witness account? Were there other incriminating statements? Was there forensic evidence? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House the name of the person who decided to drop charges? Has that person been disciplined? Has that person ever been involved in any other controversial cases? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman recommend to the Government that an all-party Select Committee be set up to look into all aspects of the law and procedures relating to cases of rape? As the hon. and learned Gentleman now has no credibility left, will he resign?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: First, I do not intend to comment on the evidence, for the reasons that I gave at the beginning. It is not proper to do so, and in the circumstances of this case it would certainly risk prejudicing both the complainer, if she continues to complain, and the accused who are presumed to be innocent, whoever they may be.
Secondly, I shall not name any person who took the responsibility in the Crown Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The decisions were taken by responsible and highly qualified Crown counsel in the very difficult circumstances of this case, acting as they believed in the best interests of the woman complainer and in the interests of justice. As I said in my statement, it was a very difficult decision to take in this case.
Thirdly, I do not think that it would be helpful to set up a special Committee of the House to investigate the particular matters of the crime of rape.

Sir Hector Monro: In the light of some recent cases, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Strathclyde police acted most humanely, efficiently and effectively, and indeed apprehended the scoundrels? Can he assure the House that where there are witnesses to a case of rape there is no way in which in future a rapist will avoid trial?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I caution my hon. Friend to remember that we have a presumption of innocence. Although certain persons were accused on

indictment, it should not be forgotten in the House that they may all have had separate interests and separate defences. I should not want the idea to go forth from this House that we assume that those who are accused on indictment are to be taken to have been found guilty of any offence. However, I commend the diligence of the Strathclyde police, who I think acted, as they do in every case in which very difficult decisions must be made, with great diligence and great humanity.

Miss Jo Richardson: Was the woman herself directly asked whether she would give evidence? I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that her previous history is nothing to do with the situation in which she found herself. Does he agree that what has happened in Scotland gives licence to rapists to rape and then cut up their victims, because they may then go scot-free?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As to whether the woman concerned was asked to give evidence, it was obvious that she was not capable of giving evidence. That is why Crown counsel obtained a psychiatric report. I cannot inform the House of the contents of the medical history, because I do not think that it would be in the interests of the woman to do so. All that I can say, on my responsibility, is that it was clear that the woman was in no state to be subjected to the ordeal of giving evidence. I said that her medical history which was taken into consideration was her medical history following the events.
May I say very sincerely that I do not think that any message goes from this case that a person who cuts up his victim will get away with rape. This is a unique case, unique in all my experience of such cases in the High Court. I do not think that that is an inference that will be drawn. I am certain that the public need have no fear that it will be.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the doctor or psychiatrist gives information in a report to the effect that it will be seriously damaging to the health of a victim to give evidence, surely this is a factor that the Crown Office is fully entitled to take into account.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is a very important matter which should be taken into account. In considering the victim, one should also take into account that if allegations are to be made—as no doubt they would be made by the defence in a rape case which was defended—it is important that they should not be made in the victim's absence, so that the woman has no opportunity to reply to them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Solicitor-General has not responded positively to the suggestion that a judicial inquiry should be set up. He has rejected the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) that the whole question of the evidence in rape should be submitted to the Scottish Law Commission. He has rejected the suggestion that the House should consider the matter. The only change that he has suggested is a change in the prosecution procedure. It appears from the whole tenor of his statement that if it had been made in this case there would have been precisely the same result, because he has backed Crown counsel's decision in everything that he has said. Does he realise that his response to the situation is completely inadequate?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The crime of rape is horrendous. It can take many different forms, between people who know one another and between people who are complete strangers. There is a very big spectrum in this crime. It has special difficulties which no other serious crime has because it involves sexual relations and the consent to sexual relations. It is a difficult area of the law. I have heard no suggestion from any quarter, as I should be glad to, as to how one can establish proof in the event of the denial by an accused person in the absence of the woman giving evidence.

Mr. Alex Pollock: May I take it from what the Solicitor-General for Scotland has told the House that although press reports concentrated initially on the physical ability of the complainer to give evidence, nevertheless another major factor in the mind of Crown counsel must have been the sufficiency and admissibility of evidence? Can he assure the House that the Lord Advocate is fully satisfied with the professional competence and expertise of the Crown counsel involved?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. There would in this case have been very difficult questions of admissibility, competency and sufficiency of evidence had the matter gone to trial, even with the evidence of the complainer. But in the absence of the evidence of the complainer, Crown counsel, with great experience and full responsibility, took the view that it was not proper to proceed and thereafter took the view that it would not be proper to leave the woman in doubt about whether she might still have to give evidence.
In an earlier answer I think I said that if a victim was killed, rape could not be charged. Of course, if the victim was killed and there was evidence from bystanders of rape while she was alive, in those circumstances rape could be charged, but that is rather a different matter.

Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement is extremely unsatisfactory and will be regarded so not only in the House but outside. May I ask him if he has had an opportunity to note that as recently as 15 January there was a case at the Old Bailey when four people were charged with a series of sexual offences, including attempted rape on a woman, and all four were sent to prison? In that case the victim was a woman of 22, said to have the mental age of a child of 7. Is it clearly not absolutely unsatisfactory that a victim in Scotland should get less justice than a woman in England who was subjected to similar attacks?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is impossible to give shorthand comparisons of cases. If I knew the entire facts of the case to which the hon. Lady referred, and if she knew the entire facts of another case, it might be sensible to draw conclusions. But in the absence of those facts it is dangerous to make comparisons, and it confuses and upsets the public. May I say this to the hon. Lady, however? There is a report in the newspapers today that in Scotland rape has been dealt with in four cases by non-custodial sentences. Let me assure the public that that is not so. In relation to the cases to which reference was made, the people being under age were in three cases sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure and to a guardianship order in the fourth case.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is grave public concern

about rape? Can he tell the House whether the incidence of rape in Scotland and/or in Britain is on the increase or the decrease? Can he also say whether in cases of rape, like violence within the family, it is difficult to get at the truth and that drink is often an important factor? Was drink a factor in this case?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not willing to divulge whether drink was a factor in this case, because that is a matter of evidence and it might well affect both the prosecution and defence if the case were to come to court. I have not the figures with me but thankfully the crime of rape has in recent years not been so significant in the criminal figures as previously. Let me say that the Crown Office and Crown counsel take the most serious view of the crime of rape. I prosecuted a crime of rape in the High Court in Glasgow last week and obtained a conviction in a case, I may say, in which the evidence was such that one might not have obtained a conviction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then what is the difference?"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions will continue for another four minutes and that sort of noise will stop someone from being called.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not wish to be misunderstood. Let me just say that there is no lack in the Crown Office of vigour to get a conviction in a crime of rape where that charge is made out and a conviction is possible.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland recall a speech that he made specifically on rape on 19 July 1977 when he said that rape involves an activity that is normal, that we had no problem in Scotland and that if there were a serious offence there would be a heavy sentence? In view of those opinions which he expressed then and presumably how holds, does he think he is a fit person to hold the position he has?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman may be particularly trying to mislead the House as to the meaning of my words. What distinguishes sexual offences from offences such as murder, stabbing, theft and the like is that they involve a human relationship and not purely or necessarily purely criminal activity. That is why the crime of rape is so difficult. I have a long experience of it and I can assure hon. Members—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: At the risk of allowing the Solicitor-General for Scotland to put his foot in it once more, may I ask him three questions arising out of the statement which he made? First, in relation to the crime of serious assault with which three of the persons concerned had been charged and to which there is no defence of consent, would he care to explain why that charge was not pursued even if he had special difficulties in relation to rape? Secondly, in relation to his statement that there was a psychiatric examination at or about the time of the trial, can he say on how many other occasions the psychiatrist was asked to inspect or see the lady in question to ascertain whether there had been any recovery or chance of recovery? Thirdly, will he not indicate to the House why he failed, in view of all the difficulties which he has mentioned, to take an application to the High Court of Justiciary in relation to the right to take evidence on commission so that at the very least that attempt might have been made to bring the case to public trial?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sure that all of us who were on the Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill appreciate that under section 32 it was intended that evidence that was not unfair to both parties and evidence of a neutral character should be taken. It was never the intention of Parliament that the evidence of a complainer in a rape case should be taken in the absence of the accused and the jury on commission. I do not believe that that could have fallen in the ambit of section 32.
The psychiatrist did not examine the woman on other occasions, but in his prognosis he stated that, if the woman gave evidence in the foreseeable future, she would be put at risk.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to serious assault. Rape is distinguished by the concept of consent. Other crimes are not. The view was taken by the Crown counsel that the two charges were related in time and place to such an extent that it would not be proper to charge one without the other. To charge both in the absence of the complainer would be prejudical and wrong. For the most responsible and humane of reasons, he considered that in this case the prosecution should be dropped.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Solicitor-General will be aware that he was apparently quoted in the evening press last night in the following terms:
I believe that the decision was a correct one…However, there is no doubt in my mind that the matter of this unfortunate woman's mental stability was irrelevant.
Do I take it from what the Solicitor-General said today that he did not say that to the press? It is important to establish that.
It is proper to refuse to divulge the information that would allay public disquiet on the grounds that there might be a private prosecution if, as the press reports the Solicitor-General as saying, it is a simple and inescapable fact that there is insufficient evidence in the case? Is that still the hon. and learned Gentleman's position? Does he accept that there is genuine public anxiety about how, given the possibility of recovery by the key witness, a letter was written to the accused that barred the Crown Office from raising any other proceedings? At best, we must have a full explanation of why that was done and why, as is normal practice, the indictment was not abandoned pro loco et tempore and left lying on the table in the hope that the deficiencies in evidence would be cured.
Will the Solicitor-General accept that at the earliest opportunity he must find some way of dealing with the apparent evidence that was printed in the Daily Record, which purported to show a full confession and which stated that there was an eye witness who could have been used in evidence? If that is so, prima facie there was a possiblility of mounting a prosecution for assault to severe injury. The public will want to know why that was not done.
If the Solicitor-General looks at his statement, he will see that, in dealing with the possibility of another charge being proceeded with, this phrase, which I am sure was much considered, is used:
it would not have been proper".
That is different from saying "It was impossible". It is open to infer from that statement that there was a point of etiquette, that it would not have been proper to proceed with another charge, but there was sufficient eviidence to do it. If that is so, public disquiet is fully justified. Will

the Solicitor-General give anxious consideration to a form of judicial inquiry, perhaps when the possibility of a private prosecution is decided one way or another, because there is no way in which this case will go to sleep? It is too central to public confidence in the system of justice in Scotland.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I repeat to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that at no time have I said that the mental state of the woman was irrelevant to anyone. It was central to every consideration. Hon. Members might believe that the people concerned were too sensitive about the effects on the woman's health. However, the woman's state of mental health and her future safety have been central to all decisions.
At no time have I suggested that there was insufficient evidence, were the complainer to have given evidence. However, in the absence of the complainer, the Crown counsel considered that it would not be proper to proceed on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the case was not deserted pro loco et tempore. The choice before the Crown counsel was to desert simpliciter or to leave the prospect that one day the woman, if she sufficiently recovered, would have to give evidence. The woman would continue to be under the expectation or fear of giving evidence. In considering the effect of that decision on the woman, it was decided that, in view of the psychiatrist's conclusion that in the foreseeable future the woman would not be fit to give evidence, the case should not proceed. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the evidence that was available. As I have said, I am not willing to divulge or comment on the evidence, for obvious reasons.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the use of the word "proper". No one in the House is more concerned than the hon. Gentleman about the protection of the rights of the accused. I should have thought that he would be the last person to suggest that it would be proper to bring allegations of rape to a trial in the High Court in the absence of the complainer, believing that they could not be proved, if it was necessary to do so in order to leave the evidence in the second charge.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you for not having given notice that I intended to raise this point of order, but I did not expect the way in which the situation has developed this afternoon. The House has been put into an impossible position. On Tuesday, it was known that the Solicitor-General for Scotland would make a statement to the House, although it was not known on which day the statement would be made. The Leader of the House generously apologised to the House during Business Questions for the indiscretions of the Solicitor-General. The right hon. Gentleman's apology was followed by one by the Solicitor-General for the press statements that appeared yesterday.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland has now proceeded to deny the press statements for which he apologised. He has made a statement that is a complete contradiction of everything that appeared in the press. The House cannot function properly on that basis. With respect, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the developments not only today but over the last three days. Perhaps you will make a


statement to the House either tomorrow or on Monday on the way in which the House has been treated and perhaps you will refer the matter to the appropriate Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but the House will realise that it must make its own judgments about statements. It is not a matter of order for me.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the additional time that you have permitted for this distressing case to be discussed, but with respect, as a number of questions have been unanswered and as only a few more hon. Members wish to question the Solicitor-General for Scotland, can you not extend the time for questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but 50 minutes or more have been spent on this question. That is longer than is allowed for other important issues that come before the House.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would appeal to your generosity. I know that half an hour has elapsed since we started, but this is a matter that concerns the whole House of Commons and not just Scottish Members. There are substantial points that I and I believe, other English Members wish to put. I understand entirely, Mr. Speaker, why you called Scottish Members first. This is, however, a matter where legitimate interest extends beyond Scottish Members. I would crave your indulgence, in the exceptional circumstances, to allow more time for hon. Members to catch your eye on this unprecedented matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order from the hon. Member below the Gangway. I believe there were also two other hon. Members seeking to catch my eye. I can tell them now that they can save the time of the House and their own time if they merely wish to ask me to continue with questions. I have made a statement to which we must stick. Otherwise we shall be all over the place in relation to other statements.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker, and your reply. I suggest, with respect, that there are wide ramifications that present both the Chair and hon. Members with difficulties. It would help, I suggest, if hon. Members were able to have a word with you privately in your office to enable you to consider the points that they make. Hon.

Members may be able to put to you suggestions that could stop this sort of thing happening in the future. That would be helpful to all concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House as long as I have. I value his advice. I am always willing to see hon. Members. Not a day passes without my having some private conversation with an hon. Member. No one would be more welcome than the hon. Gentleman himself

Sir Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not some danger that if the House continues with questions in this emotive atmosphere, we might be submitting trial by media or even trial by this House for trial by the courts? Would that not be unsatisfactory?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not serving the House by continuing now.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept what I say. If he merely wishes to ask me to allow questions to continue, I must tell him that he would be doing a favour to himself, to me and to the House if he would remain in his seat. I am not changing my mind.

Mr. Dickens: I am seeking, Mr. Speaker, to do a favour for every woman in the United Kingdom—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was well worth calling the hon. Gentleman. I await the rest of his point of order.

Mr. Robert Atkins: So does every woman.

Mr. Dickens: I am deeply sorry that my raising a point of order has caused such merriment, but this is a very serious matter. It is of paramount importance to every woman in the country. I believe that, for the sake of a few seconds on each speech, we should allow questions to continue for at least 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his few seconds.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved, 
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) the Motion in the name of Mr. Francis Pym may be taken before the business of Supply.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Zimbabwe (Independence Gift)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move, 
That Mr. Mark Carlisle and Mr. J. D. Concannon have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a gift of a Speaker's Chair to the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe.
The House will recall that on 10 December it approved the presentation of a Speaker's Chair from this House to the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe to mark its independence. The motion I am moving will give my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) leave of absence to present the gift on our behalf. They will be accompanied by Mr. Anthony Birley, a Clerk of the House. Together, they will comprise a formal delegation for that purpose.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I associate the official Opposition with the comments of the Leader of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, 
That Mr. Mark Carlisle and Mr. J. D. Concannon have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a gift of a Speaker's Chair to the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr Speaker: A point of order—Mr. Faulds.

Mr. Faulds: This is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but may I comment on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: Of course.

Mr. Faulds: I should like to say, with some sour grapes, that it is surprising that, on one of these important parliamentary occasions, a delegation—I make no comment about the capabilities or the character of the hon. Members concerned—should be chosen that contains not one single hon. Member who has pursued Southern Rhodesia issues since the mid-1960s. I believe that the House, in its sense, should choose a delegation that would represent in that country the spirit of the House of Commons which was shown when some hon. Members, earlier than others, realised the dangers of the regime at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have allowed him much more leeway than is customary. I had put the Question and the House had agreed it. I am sure, however, that those responsible will study with care the words that he has uttered.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8th Allotted Day]—considered.

Orders of the Day — Aluminium Smelter (Invergordon)

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move, 
That this House deplores the closure of the British Aluminium smelter at Invergordon as another devastating blow to the Scottish economy, condemns the failure of the Government to ensure the continued operation of the smelter, expresses its deep concern about the disastrous effects of the closure on the Highlands and its anxiety over the lack of assurances about the company's operations elsewhere, and demands that every effort be made by the Government to have the smelter re-opened on a viable basis.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland made his statement on Monday this week, I stated that the Opposition wanted a full debate on the matter. By courtesy of the Opposition, in giving up one of our Supply days, we shall have that debate now. I need not emphasise the seriousness of the situation that has been caused at Invergordon, in the Highlands as a whole and, indeed, in other areas of Scotland, by the announcement on 29 December about the closure of the smelter at Invergordon. It came at the end of another year of disasters for the Scottish economy under the present Government, including the closure of the pulp mill at Corpach and the Linwood closure, but there were many other redundancies—a whole roll call of them, day after day and week after week.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the closure at Invergordon was a profound disaster for the area. We are expecting more from him than sympathy and a wringing of hands. It is his job to prevent these profound disasters from happening in the first place. He has not done so in this instance, just as he failed to do so in many others.
The effect on the area will be very much more significant than the immediate effect on the 890 people directly employed. Between 1, 500 and 2, 000 jobs will be involved. There is not only the job loss; the whole hopes of the area for a more permanent prosperity were almost exclusively based on the permanence of the British Aluminium smelter. Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman will find, and as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary must have found—I visited the area, as he did a few days after the announcement—there is not only a sense of anger and bitterness in the area but some sense of hopelessness that once again something that promised so much for the Highlands may very well crumble into nothing.
Part of the task that the official Opposition have set themselves is to reassert the hopes of the area and the hopes of the Highlands, and that can be done only by reopening the smelter. The consequences of the closure are felt not only in the Highlands. There are consequences over the whole of Scotland, and some of my hon. Friends will want to expand on those matters in the debate. I shall mention them only briefly.
There is, first, the effect on the electricity industry. The supply industry in Scotland already has an excess capacity compared with present demands, and the closure of the smelter adds very considerably to the problem there. It calls into question what will happen when Torness comes on stream, or what will happen when the power station at Peterhead is available.
There is a major problem of surplus capacity in the electricity industry in Scotland. That impinges directly on the coal industry in Scotland, which is almost exclusively dependent at the minute on the electricity supply industry for its prosperity. There has been talk of possible pit closures arising from that. I do not wish to cause even more gloom than has already been caused by the announcement, but we roust accept that very serious problems are involved for the coal industry in the closure. I should be glad if the Secretary of State would say something about that.
There are problems for the railway industry and for the local authorities, problems that the authorities have already put to the Secretary of State in vehement terms. They, like the work force, are determined that the decision to close the smelter should be reversed. I am delighted that the work force at Invergordon has taken up the fight in this way and that it has the support of the local authorities in the area. This fight must be pursued until it is won and the smelter is reopened.
Inevitably, in a circumstance of this sort, there are those who say that the original decision to site the smelter at Invergordon was misconceived and that it could never have worked, just as the same kind of weary Willies say that the pulp mill could not have been successful at Corpach, that Linwood could not have been successful, and so on. I utterly reject such propositions. Whether the projects were initiated by a Labour Government, as in the present case, or by a Tory Government, as in the case of Linwood, it is absolute nonsense to say that they could never have worked. That applies in particular to the smelter at Invergordon.
The idea was to provide cheap and unsubsidised power—I say that in view of the later events and certain comments that have been made—to allow aluminium smelting to take place in the United Kingdom, not just at Invergordon but at Anglesey in Wales and at Lynemouth, under contracts that were rather different but basically directed towards the same end of providing an aluminium smelter industry in this country. It was considered to be desirable at that time—I still consider it to be desirable—from the point of view of the industrial base and industrial prosperity of Britain.
The projects were welcomed at the time on an all-party basis; indeed, they were welcomed by the companies. They did not go into these projects with reluctance; they went into them with enthusiasm, competing with one another to be allowed to be involved in the new projects. As recently as 1976, when the previous Labour Government introduced the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill relating to smelters, the present Secretary of State for Scotland said that the concept was imaginative and that he welcomed it. He did not go back on the view that he—and, indeed, everyone else in the House—took in 1968. He held that view until recently.
I shall not pretend that nothing went wrong once the contracts were established and once the smelters were set

up. The original promise concerning power costs has not, of course, been fulfilled, and I shall deal with that later at some length.
There were delays in the completion of the plant at Hunterston, and then there were problems with load factor, de-rating, and so on. While some of the costs arising from these problems have imposed a burden on the company, most of them have not been borne by the company. Ultimately in this case they have been borne by the taxpayer. In any event, the additional costs that halve been borne by the company, and the way in which the contract has worked—particularly in relation to its escalation clauses—have meant that the company has been paying more for its power at Invergordon than could reasonably have been expected in 1968.
Before anyone runs away with the idea that the only matter at issue is the power costs, and that only the power costs have caused the trouble, it ought to be said that British Aluminium has suffered from a lack of demand for aluminium products in the United Kingdom. That in turn is a reflection of the slump, which is the responsibility of the Conservative Government. It is not caused simply by world trading conditions.
When he was introducing the company's annual report for 1980 in March of last year, the chairman, Mr. Utiger, said:
Demand for semi-fabricated aluminium in the UK fell by 22 per cent. between the first and second quarters, and by the last quarter of 1980 was 35 per cent. below the previous year.
When the chairman was introducing the interim statement for the six months to the end of June 1981, be referred to the depressed state of the market in the United Kingdom—which, as I have said, is a reflection of the Government's economic policy—[interruption] Incidentally, Conservative Members vote against increases in the housing programme, and that is not irrelevant to the present considerations. The chairman drew attention to the fact that the slump in the United Kingdom was an important factor in the lack of demand for the company's products, and that had the unfortunate effect that the company became a net seller of metal to a very considerable degree, and was also selling the metal at a loss because of the depressed state of the world market.
It is not simply a question of power costs at Invergordon. It has to be put on record—in view again of some of the things stated in the press—that Invergordon is an efficient plant that has operated efficiently. The company has no complaints about the productivity or about the performance of the work force. Indeed, rather ironically, two or three days after the closure was announced—at no more than 48 hours' notice—the work force was told that its productivity over the previous period had been the best that the company had ever experienced, and that productivity bonuses were to be raised accordingly.
One of the things that has bedevilled discussions about the whole matter of the Invergordon smelter since the announcement on 29 December has been the lack of frankness on the part of the Secretary of State in letting the House and the public know exactly what happened during the negotiations. We expect the Secretary of State to remedy that defect this afternoon.
There has been not only a lack of frankness, but a deliberate intention to mislead on many of the important matters. First, with regard to the question of timing, the


Government knew about the crisis at Invergordon, but the Secretary of State was giving the impression that the crisis was brought to the Government's attention only in December. In the Secretary of State's statement to the House on Monday this week he spoke of the crisis being brought to the attention of the Government at the end of the year.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) mentioned a period of six weeks, the Secretary of State agreed that it was deplorable that the Government had only six weeks' notice. However, those of us who met representatives of the company earlier this week were told that notice was given formally to the Government on 6 October and that it was brought to the attention of the Government that there was a strong possibility that the smelter would have to close at the end of the year.
The Government had not merely the three weeks in December, or the six weeks about which the Secretary of State spoke, but the period since 6 October. The Government must have been aware even before then that there was a serious problem in British Aluminium. The Secretary of State met the chairman of the company and discussed the disputed power charges sometime in 1980. He must have known that the problem was building up. The Government's claim that they had only two or three weeks' notice and no time to put together anything satisfactory does not wash. It is not true. The Government had more time and if the will had been there some satisfactory settlement could have been reached.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: I have a lot to say and we started late today. I do not wish to be discourteous, but it will help if I am not interrupted. I will give way this time but it would be better if there were not too many further interruptions.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman as I want to make it clear that the statement that he has just made that the Government were aware of the intended closure on 6 October is not correct. I draw his attention to what was said in The Scotsman on 30 December 1981. It said:
OCTOBER 1981—BACO forced to deny Invergordon closure rumours which are causing a run on their shares. 'No intention of closure' says finance director.
That does not accord with what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Millan: A fortnight before the announcement the company was telling the work force that there was no prospect of closure, but the Secretary of State knew that there was such a prospect, and he knew from 6 October. That was where the message had got. The Secretary of State will not deny that because he knows that what I am saying is true.
Another question is whether a formal offer was made. The Secretary of State keeps saying that there was one, but the company denies with considerable vehemence that any particular offer was made to it. I am less concerned with whether the offer was formal or informal than with knowing what the offer was. The Secretary of State told us that there was an offer, but he described it in an

interesting and misleading way. He can clear up all these matters and tell us the full story this afternoon—I should be delighted to hear it.
However, what the Secretary of State said and what was put to the press is different. The press was told that the company was offered a three-year contract with a break clause at the end that would have cost the Government £16 million a year, with the £47 million disputed charges to be written off. That would have meant a total of £95 million. Concealed from that piece of information to the press was that as a quid pro quo for that the company was to give up its residual rights, which were subsequently valued at £79 million. Looked at from that point of view, the offer is not as generous as it looks. If that was the language in which the Government were talking to the company that was neither an adequate nor a generous approach to the problems of Invergordon and the repercussions that the closure will have throughout Scotland.
The Secretary of State has also been saying that the alternative was to provide a subsidy of £16 million a year until the end of the century. That figure of £16 million is misleading because it is not a new subsidy. It is merely an increase in the subsidy—I shall deal later with what I mean by the word "subsidy"—from £8 million to £16 million a year. The subsidy was not new. It was an adjustment to the contract that would have taken about ½p per unit off the price of the power supplied to Invergordon. That is the scale of the figure and it is compatible with the consumption of the smelter.
British Aluminium has circulated a document to all hon. Members claiming that there was not just a question of a simple contract with a three-year break clause or of giving the company everything it wanted until the end of the century. The company has said that many other matters were discussed, such as escalation. One of the worrying features of the contract, as it has worked in practice, is that, because of the way that the plant at Hunterston has operated, the escalation in charges has been higher than the escalation in normal charges to industrial consumers. That was not intended in 1968 and it should be examined.
The question of the flexibility of the power supply should also be looked at as the company has requested. At the moment it is ridiculous that, under the terms of the contract, the company has to accept 200 MW of capacity whether or not it can use it. Therefore, the company is forced to produce aluminium for which it does not have a market except at a loss. If it reduces its power intake it suffers a penalty.
I do not accept as the gospel truth everything that the company says in its document. However, the simple and simplistic way in which the Secretary of State has presented the matter has been misleading, and it is up to him to tell us the real facts. For example, the company says that on the three-year contract it was willing to enter into an arrangement with the Government whereby instead of a break clause, if the new contract turned out to be disadvantageous to the Government and gave excessive profits to the company, it was willing to enter into a profit-sharing arrangement.
I heard about that for the first time this week, when I met Mr. Utiger and other directors of the company. We had no information on any of these matters—certainly not from the Government—until we had it from the company. There was no information on the financial settlement until the company gave the details, after which the Secretary of


State gave an inaccurate account, then later confirmed the company's version. Was profit sharing offered? It is important that we should know.
The company has said that until 17 December it believed that there was on the table a package that would have allowed the smelter to continue, but it was turned down on 18 December. I can guess what happened. First, the Government decided to give no help. Then they panicked because they were frightened about the consequences of the closure, and decided to put a package together, but at the end of the day it was turned down by senior Ministers. That must be what happened. It is the only explanation that is compatible with the events, but it is speculation. The person who can tell us the true story is the Secretary of State. Will he be telling us the true story this afternoon?
It is not a question of recrimination or history. Knowing what happened is essential in terms of getting a new operator into the plant. We must know what was offered to British Aluminium. We must have some idea about what will be available to a new operator.
I turn to the question of the so-called subsidy. Two separate issues are involved. Sometimes they have been muddled in press comment and elsewhere. It was envisaged that the original contract might turn out to be bad for the company. Therefore, in 1968 the company was given a letter of comfort by the Government. On the basis of that letter the company approached the Government on 6 October. It was also envisaged in 1968 that the contract might turn out to be bad for the electricity board because it might be contracted to supply electricity to the smelter at an uneconomic price.
That is significant in relation to Invergordon. Assurances were given at that time that the Invergordon contract would contain no penalty and that no burden would fall on the other consumers in the North of Scotland. The hydro-electric board is small and has few consumers. It was estimated that the smelter consumed about one-third of the total electricity supply in the area. If the contract went wrong the loss would fall heavily on other consumers in the North of Scotland.
The Labour Government offered a commitment, which they honoured in 1976, that any loss from the smelter would not fall on the consumers in the North of Scotland, but would be borne by the Government. Because of that many misleading comments have been made. No such assurance was given in relation to Anglesey which depends upon nuclear power which is meant to come from the Dungeness power station. No assurance was given in relation to Lynemouth which has its own generating station and uses coal under a long-term cheap contract with the National Coal Board.
Anglesey is the most parallel case. There it was assumed that if a loss arose on the smelter account it would be paid for by the other consumers in England and Wales. The Secretary of State cannot deny what has happened. Electricity has been supplied to the Alcan smelter at Lynemouth and to the RTZ Kaiser smelter at Anglesey at cheaper prices than those paid by British Aluminium up to the termination of the contract. The figures might not be entirely accurate, but I believe that 1p a unit was charged in the case of Alcan, 1·3p per unit in the case of RTZ and 1·7p to British Aluminium.
I do not know whether losses are being borne by the National Coal Board under the contract for power at Lynemouth or whether losses are being borne by the

Central Electricity Generating Board under the Anglesey contract. The Anglesey smelter is being supplied with electricity at artificial prices estimated on the basis of what the cost would be when Dungeness came into operation, but 14 years later Dungeness is not in operation. Since Anglesey is being supplied with cheaper power than Invergordon it would be a miracle if the so-called smelter subsidy at Anglesey were not already substantially higher than that quoted for Invergordon. The difference is that we know the size of the smelter deficit at Invergordon because the Labour Government said that they would reimburse the deficit. Orders to that effect have been passed. We do not know the deficit at Anglesey or Lynemouth. Those figures are shrouded in the cloak of commercial confidentiality.
The Secretary of State can deny it if he wishes, but it would be incredible if the Anglesey plant had not been given a bigger subsidy or sustained a bigger smelter loss than Invergordon. Yet the implication is that Invergordon is inefficient, that the other two places must be efficient and that Invergordon has cost the taxpayer a lot of money when the others have not. The electricity consumers in England and Wales have been paying for Anglesey's losses and any deficit at Lynemouth will be paid by the taxpayer through subventions to the NCB.
What was meant to be an advantage for Invergordon has turned into a disadvantage because the losses there have been made public whereas in the other places they have been kept confidential. Nobody knows what the losses are.
Those points are fundamental to what happens now. I make them because I want to know whether the Government, in making decisions about Invergordon, took fully into account what was happening at Anglesey and Lynemouth, and whether the Government decision on Invergordon was compatible with what is happening at Anglesey and Lynemouth and was fair to Invergordon and Scotland. If it was not it is a scandal.
We shall have the truth in due course because the Anglesey contract comes up for renegotiation this year in readiness for when Dungeness comes into operation. The Lynemouth contract comes up for renegotiation in 1983. The sooner the Government come clean the better. We demand the facts. They are essential to the whole issue.
Let us examine the outcome of the negotiations. I assume that the Scottish Office wanted to keep the smelter open. It is a doubtful proposition, but I give the Secretary of State credit at least for that. I do not, however, trust the Department of Industry or the Treasury in that respect. What happened?
As a result of the negotiations the smelter was closed. The Secretary of State said ad nauseam on Monday that he wanted to receive assurances about the the plant at Falkirk. He told us that the extra £21 million, as well as the £79 million for residual rights, was specifically directed to safeguarding the other plants in Scotland. The Company received £100 million, not £21 million. Most of the £79 million was credit for the company because it has already written the power charges of £47 million off its books. The £21 million was to keep open the Falkirk plant. But we have discovered that the £21 million of written off loans was not connected with the Falkirk operation in any way. We are told that Falkirk has been making a loss of about £5 million a year. That sum would keep it going for four years. Why was it not given the sum in bits of £5 million a year? The money was given with no strings attached. Within days of the announcement about Invergordon we are told that Falkirk is now in danger, 


involving the loss of another 1, 200 jobs. If the Secretary of State wanted to protect Falkirk why did he not tie the £21 million of written off loans to specific assurances about Falkirk? I should have accepted that. I would have accepted that, and that the money was well spent. However, the money has gone into British Aluminium and the right hon. Gentleman has secured no assurances in return.
Presumably the other objective of the negotiations, once it was clear that Invergordon was to close, was to get some assurance about the price at which the plant would be made available to a new operator. What happened on that? Nothing. The £21 million has been paid and the company still holds the plant. I do not complain about the company on that, because the company is only looking after its own interests, and it will not give an assurance on the price at which it will make the plant available to a new operator. It ought to be a break-up price, and nothing more. My complaint is that the Government ought to have settled that during the December negotiations, but they clearly did not.
What has happened? First, there was the £10 million sop to the Highlands board, but as the Secretary of State knows, that means nothing. The board will no doubt do the best it can, as it does in other desperate situations, but in terms of the area's needs—the 1, 500 to 2, 000 jobs—that is meaningless.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board what happened in the last major closure in the Highlands—the Corpach pulp mill. The right hon. Gentleman knows that major efforts were made to secure new employment, but virtually nothing has happened there. Although Lochaber Timber Industries is interested in reopening the pulp mill, the convenor of the district council told me that Wiggins Teape will be dismantled shortly. The Under-Secretary knows the problem and I hope that he will give us assurances about it.
The aim must be to reopen the smelter. I do not feel the least confident that, whatever happens with British Aluminium, it is likely to do that. The extra £8 million subsidy does not meet the £18 million or £20 million loss that British Aluminium made on the smelter in 1981. The company is still strapped for money, although the Government have been generous to it, and it will not reopen the smelter on its own account under any conceivable contract likely to be offered by the Government. It may come in as a partner and there might be certain advantages in that, although the recent experience of the work force means that it is not enamoured with being involved with British Aluminium.
What procedures are the Government carrying out to secure a new operator? The Secretary of State said last week that there were two companies "nibbling" at the idea of taking over the smelter. We asked British Aluminium on Wednesday whether it knew which companies they were, but it said that it had no idea; the Scottish Office had not told it and it had been approached by nobody.
The Government are responsible for the inconvenient fact that, whether we like it or not, the company still owns the plant. Yet the Government and the Highland board have not told the company who the nibblers are. I know that the Secretary of State will not tell the House, because he does not even tell us what we ought to know. If it is to be a proper operation, rather than a facade, we must

know far more about what is happening. Reports appeared in The Guardian today and, no doubt, in the Scottish newspapers, although I cannot quote from those because of the rail strike, concerning the setting-up of a holding company by the Highland board. The Guardian states that there are six people on a short list. Is that an accurate statement?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): No.

Mr. Millan: The Under-Secretary says "No". Let him tell us what is accurate, what is going on, and let him say something about the two key factors involved in order to get a new operator.
First, I make it clear that it will be shameful if the plant is not offered by British Aluminium at a break-up value. The Conservative council in the area has said that the plant ought to be nationalised without compensation and I have a certain amount of sympathy with that view.
Secondly, what will happen on the power charge? The Government said that they would be helpful. They were "helpful" during the negotiations before the smelter closed down. Therefore, when the Government say that they will be helpful, we must reach for our guns. However, what do they mean? If it does not mean money, it means nothing.
What will be offered under the new contract which is better than was offered to British Aluminium? If the same offer is made to a new operator as was made to British Aluminium, the smelter will not be reopened.
I state as clearly and as categorically as I can that there must be even-handedness between Invergordon, Anglesey and Lynemouth. It will be intolerable if arrangements are made to keep Anglesey and Lynemouth open under more favourable power arrangements than have been offered so far or were likely to be offered to Invergordon. I do not say that to knock the other two smelters because I want to see them kept open. However, if the Government approach the problems that those smelters will face in 1982 and 1983 in the way that they have approached Invergordon's problems, their future must be open to considerable doubt.
The Government must decide whether they want a smelter industry or not. If they do, it requires a far better power contract, whatever the mechanics and whether with the Highlands Board's idea of linkage to hydro-electric power or in another form. The mechanics do not matter so much as the ultimate end. If the Government want a smelter industry, they must give power costs much more favourable than those so far available at Invergordon. Unless the Government take that attitude and make that a reality in the negotiations, the smelter will never reopen.
The Opposition not only regret the disaster but deplore the fact that the Government prevented the smelter from being saved during the December negotiations. We shall do everything possible to get that deplorabe decision reversed. We shall support the workers, trade unions, local authorities and everybody else in the Highlands who wants to see the smelter reopened. That is what we demand from the Government.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'this House deeply regrets the closure of the smelter at Invergordon with the loss of 890 jobs; notes that the power


contract between the British Aluminium Company and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board signed in 1968 became the major factor threatening the future of the entire British Aluminium Company; recognises the need for the prompt action taken by Her Majesty's Government to assist the retention of the remaining 2, 700 jobs in Scotland; and supports Her Majesty's Government in its efforts to find a new operator for the smelter and to attract new industry to the area.'
We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) for making the time available to have a proper debate on this important issue. I agree that the closure is extremely serious. I described it as a "profound disaster" for the Highlands and it is just that. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a question not merely of the smelter, but of the ancillary jobs connected with it and the other large and small businesses dependent on that smelter. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can imagine just how seriously anyone in my position would react on hearing that the company was to close the smelter.
Having agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, I profoundly disagree with his utterly unsupportable and groundless suggestion that I have shown a lack of frankness on this matter. Since the company made the announcement in December I have met the press, appeared on television and met a series of deputations from the local authorities, workers, people in the area, hon. Members and a deputation led by the right hon. Member for Craigton. He will agree that that was a helpful and useful meeting.
On each of those occasions I did everything that was humanly possible to give all the relevant facts. It is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise. I have no objection to his disagreeing with what we have tried to do, but I take exception to being told that I have not been frank, when he knows perfectly well that I have done everything that I could to keep everybody informed of the facts. I shall carry that through today. I intend to spell out every possible detail. If it appears at times that I am giving too much detail, I hope at least that I shall not be accused of saying too much. It is in everyone's interest that the maximum possible information about the situation should be known.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton was right to describe the problem as complex. Everyone concerned will agree that this is one of the most serious industrial closures for many years, and certainly one of the most complex. Therefore we have to go into the question of the original contract, how it worked, the possibilities for power contracts and the reasons and time scale involved in the closure.
My objective will be to cover as much ground as I can.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: One consequence of the approach that I propose is that I do not believe that I should give way, because I know from experience that that will lengthen the time that I take.

Dr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, it will have to be the only time that I give way.

Dr. Miller: Will the Secretary of State tell us what is meant in the amendment by
recognises the need for the prompt action

taken by the Government? What prompt action have the Government taken?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that it is worth wasting the time of the House on that.
I start with the background to the contract that ended on 31 December, how it came into effect and the details of it. The right hon. Member for Craigton referred to some of the matters involved.
The late 1960s saw the setting up of three aluminium smelters. The Government of the day decided that, since the new generation of advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power stations were expected to produce electricity at highly competitive prices, steps should be taken to attract electricity-intensive industries to the United Kingdom. Aluminium smelters were particularly attractive candidates, because they use vast amounts of power and at that time virtually all our aluminium was imported, adding to balance of payments difficulties. The Government therefore invited applications from potential smelter operators and, after complex negotiations, the three smelters were set up. Two of these, at Anglesey and Invergordon, had special contracts for electricity, while the third at Lynemouth had a special contract for coal, from which it would generate its own electricity.
It may help the House if I explain in more detail the provisions of the 1968 contract. It is central to many of the events that we are discussing. Under that contract the company agreed to pay for the construction of about 21 per cent. of Hunterston B, in return for a guaranteed supply of electricity for the smelter until the year 2000. About 21 per cent. of the station was the proportion expected to be required to meet the smelter's demand.
The first important point is that after the station was commissioned it became clear that the output would not reach the original design level and that, therefore, 21 per cent. of the station would not be adequate to meet the company's requirements. The then Government decided in 1976 that it would be wrong to ask the company to acquire the further 5 per cent. of the station needed to meet the smelter's demands and, instead, the capital cost of the additional 5 per cent. was met by the Government through the reimbursement of smelter deficit to the hydro-electric board.
There seems to have been some confusion over the power charges paid by the company. The charges were naturally confidential to the parties involved while the contract was in operation, but now that it has been terminated both parties have agreed to their being disclosed. The contract provided for a basic annual charge, to be escalated in line with the cost of replacement fuel at Hunterston B and the operating costs of the station.
It was expected at the time that the charges under the contract would remain at least broadly stable in real terms. In fact the charges have increased in real terms, particularly in recent years, as the electricity boards have started to provide for the costs of reprocessing nuclear fuel. Many of the costs associated with nuclear power have turned out to be considerably higher than was foreseen in 1968 when the AGR stations were in the early stages of construction. AGR costs remain, of course, cheaper than the costs of supply from fossil-fired stations, but they are not as low as was originally expected.
The company told me at a meeting that it was told in 1968, while negotiating to go to Invergordon, that the crossover point would come at some time half way through


the contract, when the cost of the nuclear power concerned would become cheaper than that of fossil-fired power. The right hon. Member for Craigton was in the Government at that time, but I do not know whether he can confirm that what the company told me is true. Certainly it is far from remotely like what has happened.
The charges actually made to the company in recent years are as follows. In 1980–81 the company was charged by the board a total of £18·2 million for the contracted supply of 1, 747 million units. When the company's own annual capital and other charges of £3·9 million are taken into account, its total power costs were about £22·1 million, or 1·26p per unit. For 1981–82 the charges provisionally notified to the company in September by the board were £25 million. Including the company's own annual capital and other charges of £4·1 million this was equivalent to total power costs of about £29·1 million, or 1·67p per unit.
The company queried certain elements in the increased charges and the board, after consultation with the Government, offered to adjust the charging formula in a way which would have cut the charges in 1981–82 by about £3·4 million while increasing the charges for earlier years by about £2·6 million in total. Had that revision been made to the power charge, the company's total power costs, including capital and other charges, would probably have been around £25·7 million, or about 1·47p per unit. The final charges would not have been known until the end of the year when the actual fuel and operating costs of Hunterston B were known.
I come to the so-called "residual value" provisions of the contract. The contract between the company and the board, to which, of course, the Government were not a party, provided for the company to receive, in the event of early termination of the contract, the so-called "residual value" or the tranche of Hunterston B for which it had paid originally. I should underline—and this is very important—that this payment was provided for explicitly in the contract; it was not a matter over which the Government had any control or discretion. I see nothing surprising or improper in that. If two people go into partnership in an industrial enterprise, or even to buy a house, and one subsequently decides to move, he is surely entitled to the appropriate share of the value.
In the case of a power station, the residual value is the value to the electricity boards of the output expected from the station in the future and that is what BA was entitled to—the value of the output expected from 21 per cent. of Hunterston B from the date of termination until 2000.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Younger: I must resist. I said that I would not give way. I am not being discourteous, but I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
The right hon. Member for Craigton referred to the discussions with the company. I should like to record the contacts between the Government and the company prior to the announcement of the closure of the smelter.
With my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I met representatives of the company on 12 February 1980—the meeting referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—to discuss the dispute between the company and the hydro-electric board over charges for electricity

supply to the smelter. The company made a number of points to me about the terms of its contract with the board and about the issues in dispute, but at no time during the meeting did it suggest that there was an underlying doubt about the future of the company as a whole or the Invergordon smelter in particular. I invited the company to approach me again if it wished to discuss the position further.
The first indication that the Government received from the company of the seriousness of its position and of the possibility of closing the smelter came during a meeting in October 1981 between officials of the Department of Industry and representatives of the company. The Government immediately instituted an intensive series of discussions with the company involving both Ministers and officials in an effort to find a solution. At the beginning of December I had the first of two meetings with the chairman of the company and it was made clear to me that the company's financial position had deteriorated to such an extent that it was faced with a stark choice—either the Invergordon smelter had to close by the end of the company's financial year on 31 December 1981 on the basis of a negotiated settlement with the Government and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, or the whole company would go into liquidation.
Faced with that choice in early December, and considering the effect that the company's liquidation would have on employment elsewhere in Scotland, we concluded—I am as certain today as I was at the time that we were right—that if no means could be found to keep the smelter open we had no alternative but to proceed to a negotiated settlement. That is what happened at the time. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will be kind to their colleagues and allow my remarks to be heard. Hon. Members want information to be able to make a judgment on whether the Government acted rightly or wrongly.
That was the choice with which the Government were faced, and, even if he cannot do so now, I hope that the right hon. Member for Craigton will think quietly to himself about what choice he would have made. The choice was either to threaten the whole company with possible liquidation and the loss of 2, 700 jobs in many parts of Scotland, or to make some arrangement with the company in the light of its requests.

Mr. Millan: The fact is that the Labour Government took the smelter to Invergordon and the right hon. Gentleman has closed it down.

Mr. Younger: That was a pathetic intervention. It was worse than that. The right hon. Gentleman will not face up to the fact that, if he denies that, he is saying that he would have preferred to risk those other jobs. He knows very well that that is so because that is the choice that I faced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] If I had refused to do anything about making an arrangement with the company in its difficulties before 31 December, I might be standing before the House today defending a failure of mine, which led to 2, 700 jobs being lost throughout Scotland. I was not prepared to put myself in that position, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would have been. I would make the same decision again today.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is it not a fact, as the company told us on Wednesday, that it put a proposition to the Government


which, up until 17 December, it had reason to believe would have been acceptable? It would have kept the company going and therefore would have achieved the purpose that the Secretary of State proclaims to the House that he is interested in achieving. It would have saved not only the other 2, 700 jobs but the 900 jobs at Invergordon. Is it not true, therefore, that the Secretary of State had a choice and that had he heeded it he could have kept the company open and the smelter at Invergordon running?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's point is fair, but it is different. The proposition was made by the Government to the company. Our first objective was to try to keep the whole company in being, including the smelter. We negotiated hard with the company to try to find a basis for doing so. I have clearly said in all my statements that we reached the point whereby the only deal that we could have arranged would have cost the taxpayer approximately £16 million a year every year until the year 2000, with the figure probably escalating.
It is open to Opposition Members to say that that arrangement should have been accepted. However, no hon. Member has so far said it, simply because, in their hearts, Opposition Members know very well that that is an astronomical sum. We believe that it could not possibly have been justified in comparison with other industries in Scotland, including high energy-using industries. I am sure that Opposition Members realise that no Government would have been able to carry that sort of weight.

Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Secretary of State has said that he will not give way.

Mr. Younger: Discussions on the negotiated settlement were carried out by officials throughout the first half of December. We began with the intention of reaching an agreement that would be acceptable both to the company and to the Government.

Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Younger: Very well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Bray: In calculating the compensation to the company for the loss of the electricity contract up to the year 2000, it should be borne in mind that a specific quantity of electricity was to be supplied to the company. Therefore, crucial to the calculation of the compensation is the price that was assumed in breaking the contract. The Secretary of State has given the House no information about the basis of the future price assumptions up to the year 2000. It is a highly speculative matter. I do not see how the House can judge whether the compensation is justifiable.

Mr. Younger: I am not quite clear of the hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall deal shortly with the arrangement with the company, the residual value and all the other factors.
We have explored every avenue possible to try to get agreement. The right hon. Member for Craigton asked whether any formal offers were made. There were no formal offers because it was made clear in the discussions that none was acceptable. That is the point about the short-term offer. In spite of what has been said so many times, 

we are now clear about what happened and it is confirmed by the joint statement that was made by Mr. Utiger and my hon. Friend, and is also confirmed by the terms of the letter that has been sent to hon. Members. I quote from the joint statement:
The question of a break clause after three years was raised by Government during last month's negotiations. The company felt that such a right of termination was inappropriate in the package under discussion which was aimed at securing the long-term viability of the smelter.
That is perfectly clear and I hope that there will be no more mumbo-jumbo or mysteries about it.
The basis of the agreed proposal was discussed by the Government on 18 December. It involves increasing the annual deficit payment from about £8 million to about £16 million, at today's prices, until the year 2000. That deal was considered to be unacceptable because of its vast cost. Further discussions then had to take place on the terms of the closure settlement, which continued until the company made its announcement on 29 December.
I come now to the termination of the settlement. I spelt out in my statement to the House on Monday the details of the settlement reached between the Government, the board and the company. However, there is still considerable misunderstanding on the subject, so I shall explain it. The residual value set on the company's share of Hunterston B by the Scottish boards was approximately £79 million. The board deducted from that sum the charges which the company had been withholding because of the dispute over the interpretation of its contract, so that the company actually received about £32 million from the board in return for surrendering its share of Hunterston B.
The company at the date of termination owed the Department of Industry about £33·5 million in outstanding loans. It was clear from the investigations we ourselves carried out into the company's financial position that, had the Government required the company to repay these loans in full, the company would have been permanently weakened, and would have been obliged to close down at least some of its other operations in the United Kingdom, starting with its rolling mill at Falkirk. In view of the threat to the company's other activities, and the large losses it had accumulated at Invergordon over the years, for reasons which to some extent were beyond its control, we decided that it would be equitable to waive repayment of approximately £21 million of the loans. The company therefore repaid £12 million to the Department of Industry out of the £32 million it had received from the board, and retained about £20 million. The company received that £20 million from the residual value settlement, not directly from the Government.
To say, as the right hon. Member for Craigton said, that the company received £100 million to close down the smelter is a total distortion of the settlement. The waiving of full repayment of the loans does not guarantee the future of any of the remaining plants. It cannot do so. No company in any line of business is in a position to guarantee that in all circumstances it can keep going. It is quite clear that, if we had insisted on the full repayment of those loans, we should have put several thousand more jobs at risk. I can imagine what Opposition Members would say if we had insisted upon full repayment of that loan and one job had been lost. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and others would have been at my neck saying that it was the wrong thing to do. We all know that that is so.
What are the implications for the electricity boards? There are three main implications. They are somewhat complicated, but I shall explain them as simply as I can.
First, the boards will lose the revenue from their largest customer. Secondly, the boards' direct generating costs will be reduced, because electricity demand will be lower. The boards will respond to this lower demand by reducing the operation of their least efficient stations—the stations with the highest generating costs. This means that the more expensive coal-burning stations at Cockenzie and Kincardine and the oil-burning station at Inverkip will be used somewhat less frequently. The SSEB's annual coal consumption will fall by about 750, 000 tonnes per annum. The reduction in direct generating costs over the next few years is likely to be greater than the loss of revenue.
Thirdly, the boards will incur additional interest charges, because they have had to acquire the tranche of Hunterston B hitherto allocated to the smelter. The tranche allocated to the smelter amounted to 26 per cent. of the station's output. The company paid for the construction of only 21 per cent. of the station, as I said earlier, but, as I explained, 26 per cent. of the station has had to be reserved for the smelter requirements in the event of the performance of the stations. It follows that, on termination of the contract, the full 26 per cent. tranche was recovered by the SSEB, with payment for 21 per cent. being made to the company and payment for 5 per cent. being credited to the hydro board's smelter account. The SSEB paid £99 million to acquire the 26 per cent. tranche, and the interest charges on this sum will be borne by both boards, because of the operation of their joint generating account.
Taken together, these three effects—the loss of revenue, the lower direct generating costs, and the higher interest charges—should broadly balance out over the next few years. The boards are still evaluating the implications in detail and at the moment I am not in a position to give more precise estimates. It appears at this stage that there will be no significant effects on the Scottish electricity boards' tariffs in the near future. In the longer term, the savings in generating costs will rise in line with the cost of fossil fuel, whereas the interest charges will remain fixed in money terms, and the overall effect will be to reduce the boards' total costs.
It has been suggested that the closure of the smelter removes the need for the board's nuclear station at Torness, which is now under construction. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) suggested that the closure is a nail in the coffin of Torness.
Such nails would make little impression on the millions of tonnes of concrete which the board is now pouring and has poured into Torness. There is here a misunderstanding of the role that Torness is to play. The Government have allowed Torness to proceed because it will be very much cheaper to operate than the board's oil and coal-fired stations, not because the additional generating capacity will be needed when it is commissioned in five or six years. Over the period of the new station's life, the operating savings are expected to exceed by a considerable margin the capital costs of the station. This should result, therefore, in a direct and clear benefit in terms of electricity prices to Scottish consumers in the future. It should hold down the cost of electricity in the 1990s, when coal and oil are expected to get increasingly expensive.

Mr. Millan: We shall all be dead by then.

Mr. Younger: I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be dead by the 1990s, but if by any chance he were there would still be no excuse for being irresponsible enough to stop the building of a proper power station for keeping people going in the 1990s. That kind of silly comment does not help our debate.
The board has assured me that the project at Torness is still on programme and it is pleased with it.
I was asked about the effect on the National Coal Board and British Rail. There are, of course, important consequences for both these bodies. As I said, the NCB faces a drop in the coal requirements of its largest customer in Scotland, amounting to some 750, 000 tonnes per annum. The board is not yet in a position to assess the full effects of this loss of sales, and these will obviously depend on the extent to which it can find alternative markets for this quantity of coal. I gather that it expects to do so. The board has enjoyed considerable success in the export markets in the last year or two. British Rail will lose a very important customer for its services beyond Inverness. The board has said that savings will have to be made to compensate for this loss, and the Government are obviously concerned about the impact which it may have on British Rail Scottish region, but at the moment there is no suggestion that there is a threat to the services.
I announced on 29 December that I am providing a special extra allocation of funds, amounting up to £10 million over the next three years, to enable the Highlands and Islands Development Board to undertake special measures to provide new employment opportunities in the Invergordon area. It is a large sum, compared with that board's annual budget, and if it is needed I am certain that it will be much valued. The board's efforts can be split into two linked activities. Firstly, HIDB and Locate in Scotland are co-operating in efforts to find an alternative user for the Invergordon smelter, which must be the No. 1 priority. The HIDB's board member for industry, Mr. Gordon Drummond, is leading this search. There is no one better qualified than Mr. Drummond to do this. Before he joined the HIDB full-time in 1977, he was managing director of the primary division of the British Aluminium Company at Inverness and was responsible for setting up and running the Invergordon smelter. He thus has a unique knowledge of the aluminium industry, and I am confident that if there is another operator willing to take over the smelter Mr. Drummond will find him, and I am grateful to him for the lead that he is taking in this matter. As he knows, he has my full support.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The search for an alternative operator for the smelter is clearly crucial, but what can Mr. Gordon Drummond and the highland board offer by way of inducement in respect of a power contract to any potential smelter operator? Without that information, Mr. Drummond cannot hope to attract a smelter operator.

Mr. Younger: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am coming to that point.
The second strand of the board's efforts is the contingency exercises. We must all accept that although the first priority must be to find a new operator to start the smelter running again there is the possibility that this may not succeed in which case we must think ahead to what must then be done. My Department and HIDB are working


urgently on a study of action which might be taken to mitigate the effects of such a closure. The aim will be to set out the scale of the difficulties facing the Invergordon area, to analyse all possible approaches towards overcoming them and to draw up a programme of action. I announced this exercise at a meeting with representatives of the Highland regional council and Ross and Cromarty district council on 12 January and we have asked the study team to produce a draft report by mid-February. I intend to publish the report after consultation with the local authorities and to use it as a basis for further action. I hope that all concerned in the area will co-operate with the study team by submitting views and ideas to my Department and the board—we would welcome that—and by responding to any requests for information and assistance.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Mr. Younger: I think that I have been very generous, but if this is the last intervention I shall give way.

Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the views of local authorities. In common with every Scottish Member, he will have received a letter from Highland regional council, backed by Ross and Cromarty district council. Neither of those local authorities is known for its domination by Left-wing extremists, but the Secretary of State will have read in that letter that the smelter must be made available for public ownership intact and gratis—that is, public ownership without compensation. Will the Secretary of State support the local authorities, because that would be of considerable assistance in getting an alternative operator to come in? Will he bear in mind that, with the Secretary of State's approval, the BACO has already walked off with over £20 million profit from the closure and therefore deserves not a single additional penny of compensation?

Mr. Younger: That is a matter of opinion. I can think of nothing more likely to drive away anyone thinking of coming to the area than the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. His language is a certain turn-off to anyone who might want to come to the area. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he makes public speeches on the subject. I have been a little too generous in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Perhaps I should say a little more about some of the factors which the study will cover. We need to identify in more detail the direct and indirect employment consequences of the closure and the knock-on effects, such as under-utilisation of infrastructure and the decline in demand for the services of other industries such as the National Coal Board, British Rail and the electricity boards. We need to see how far other employers are likely to need further labour in the near future and an assessment of the power costs necessary for such an operation to operate viably at Invergordon. Consultants hired by the HIDB had started to look at this subject generally, even before British Aluminium announced the smelter closure.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and, I think, the right hon. Member for Craigton asked about the possibility of a new power contract. That is one of the aspects that the HIDB study will need to cover. I do not wish to anticipate the study's findings, but several proposals have been put forward in recent weeks on which I should perhaps comment. One simple general point is that if a new smelter operator at

Invergordon were to be treated by the hydro board like any other large industrial consumer, the board would have to charge over 2·5p per unit in the coming year for its electricity in order to cover the cost of supply. It was evident from our negotiations with BACO that for the smelter's operation to be economic a price at least 50 per cent. below that would be necessary.
There are two ways in which the gap can be bridged. Either the Government can compensate the board for its losses, as was done for the British Aluminium Company, or the costs can be borne by other electricity consumers, as would happen if the board set aside some of its most economic hydro stations to provide the supply. It would be necessary to set aside about 60 per cent. of the board's hydroelectric capacity, because the board's hydro stations do not deliver their full design output on a continuous basis.
There is no escaping the basic choice. The cost would have to be met either by the taxpayer or by other electricity consumers. The amount involved is not necessarily insignificant. It would probably be about £15 million to £20 million a year, depending on the precise terms of supply.
As the joint statement issued by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the chairman of BAC said:
Any improved arrangements for a new company would present formidable difficulties., since that contract already provided power at a price approximately half that paid by Scottish consumers.
Nevertheless, the Government are ready and willing to discuss with the electricity boards and any potential new operator, or operators, new arangements for a power supply for the smelter. The arrangements would obviously depend on the operator involved, the nature of the operator, what other interests he might have, his background, the circumstances of the approach made, and the other factors involved. Any operator can be sure that we are ready, willing and anxious to discuss that with them as soon as possible.
Many questions have been asked about the other smelters. We intend that the HIDB study should consider the position of other smelters in Western Europe, and the board has already assembled some of the relevant information through consultants. Several European countries such as France, Norway and Switzerland that have substantial smelter capacity also have massive resources of hydroelectric power. Our hydroelectric resources in Scotland are very small compared with those countries.
I shall deal briefly with the position of the other United Kingdom smelters, at Anglesey and Lynemouth. The operators of those smelters, like British Aluminium, negotiated special arrangements for power supplies in 1968. The criticisms that I thought that the right hon. Member for Craigton made about the nature of the arrangements for Anglesey and Lynemouth must be considered against the background that he was a member of the Labour Government who negotiated them. If he did not like them then, he did not say so. Perhaps he was just keeping quiet. I do not know.
The arrangements are not identical and the details of the contracts, which are commercially confidential, were not determined by the Government but fixed in negotiations between the companies and, in the case of Anglesey, the CEGB and, in the case of Lynemouth, the National Coal Board. Clearly, since the power arrangements have been


agreed between the boards and the companies, the Government cannot intervene in the operation of purely commercial contracts.
It has been suggested that the contracts enable the companies to enjoy cheaper electricity than was available to BACO at Invergordon. I cannot comment on the prices involved, although it is no secret that both contracts now involve the respective boards in heavy losses. The important point is that the Anglesey and Lynemouth smelters are operating under long-term contracts in which the Government cannot intervene. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that there is, and must be, a relationship between the smelters—we hope that there are still three—and that will be borne very much in mind.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman has just confirmed my suggestion that those contracts are also making severe losses. However, the losses are not being disclosed. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm something that is common knowledge—that the contracts are providing power supplies to Anglesey and Lynemouth at a cost per unit that is significantly below that being charged to British Aluminium at Invergordon?

Mr. Younger: As I told the right hon. Gentleman, as the contracts are commercial, commercial confidentiality is involved. The right hon. Gentleman can make inquiries, just as I can. However, I cannot confirm that officially, because commercial confidentiality is involved. Under Governments of both parties that has always been the case and I think and hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respect that.

Mr. Millan: I cannot leave that point there. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the information that losses are being made and I said that that was inevitable. However, we want to know whether Invergordon has been treated fairly compared with the other two smelters, given the negotiations that the Government had with British Aluminium between October and December. From what the right hon. Gentleman said, it has not been treated fairly compared with them. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that point?

Mr. Younger: That is not quite the position. I have been open and have told the right hon. Gentleman that I cannot give the precise cost per unit for those smelters. However, in one case the contract was between Anglesey and the CEGB and in the other it was between Lynemouth and the NCB. In both cases, the shortfall in the cost, or subsidy, comes not from the Government, but from the other consumers concerned. When we came to considering the Invergordon smelter and whether we could let it continue, the two contracts at Anglesey and Lynemouth were not up for renewal. They are still running and the Government cannot interrupt them or change them in any way.

Mr. Milan: The right hon. Gentleman is not answering my question.

Mr. Younger: I accept that there has to be a relationship in the way that all three smelters are treated. The right hon. Gentleman must accept that we cannot stop the clock in the middle of contracts that are already

running. We cannot alter overnight the terms for the other two merely because it would suit us to do so. I hope that he does not expect me to do that.

Mr. Millan: I wish to make it clear that I wish to do nothing to damage the other two smelters, but unless we achieve some satisfactory position in relation to the other two smelters when their contracts subsequently come to be renegotiated they will be in danger as well. I was asking not that their contracts should be renegotiated now but whether what the Government offered to British Aluminium in October and December was fair in relation to what is happening at Anglesey and Lynemouth now. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer that question?

Mr. Younger: That was not the breaking point. The problem arose when we came to negotiate a possible new contract, or a variation of the old contract, to keep the Invergordon smelter going. The difficulty was that the company felt that nothing short of an agreement right through to the year 2000 would work, would be tolerable or would be possible. That was why the suggestion was made—the company agreed with it—that a shorter term solution would be better. However, the company, for the reasons that I have explained, felt that that could not be done. I hope that that has cleared up the matter. I am certain that it has.
The fundamental reason for the closure of the smelter was that, in the extremely weak conditions which prevail in the world's aluminium markets at present and which are expected to prevail for some time to come, the smelter needs access to exceptionally cheap power in order to survive. The arrangements which were developed in 1968 were formulated with the best intentions. I repeat that I did not criticise them then and I do not criticise the then Government for them. However, they did not provide power at anything like a sufficiently competitive price to enable the smelter to continue in the present circumstances.

Mr. Dick Douglas: rose—

Mr. Younger: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking throughout the debate. We have so enjoyed his speeches that I do not think we shall have any more.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) knows perfectly well that the Secretary of State is not giving way.

Mr. Younger: I am sorry. I am not normally discourteous to hon. Members who wish to intervene, but I must finish my speech.
The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely off-beam when he suggested that the low point which has been reached in the aluminium market is a result of the Government's economic policy. That is an overstatement of the most extraordinary size. If that is so, we must be responsible for the state of aluminium markets all over the world, including Japan's, where aluminium smelters are being closed because of the state of the overall market. The Government's main priority remains that of the people in the area—to find, by any means possible, a new operator to come in to run the smelter as a going concern.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Younger: That is the Government's main priority.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remain in his seat. The Secretary of State has made it plain that he will not give way. There are 18 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in this important debate, and interruptions will make it highly unlikely that they will all be called.

Mr. Younger: We shall spare no effort, nor will the Highlands board, to find another operator if we possibly can. If we can find one, we are ready and willing to negotiate a power contract with it. We shall do our best to achieve that.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Member for Craigton, at the beginning of the debate, produced a great many facts and figures, many of which are absolutely correct and with which I agree. I do not accept his interpretation of the other facts and figures that he produced. However, I agree entirely that the closure is a major disaster for the Highlands. I agree that it is our responsibility to do everything we can to try to repair the damage.
The closure was a tremendous disaster to the area. The Government moved immediately and did everything possible to prevent closure. They did everything to provide the maximum number of facts and to present the truth to the public. They have made every effort to save the rest of the company, which was in great danger at the critical point in negotiations. They have made a full commitment to the Invergordon area that they shall stand by it and help in every way that they can in this crisis. The Government have it as their first priority to try to find another operator to keep the smelter going. By any standards, that is a Government response which deserves the commendation of the House, and I ask the House to commend it.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Secretary of State lives in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that that statement will meet with the approval of the House. At any rate, he does not disagree that the whole matter has been a tragedy and disaster for the Invergordon area. I believe that there will be general agreement on that if on very little else.
The closure will mean an unemployment rate of over 20 per cent. in the Invergordon area. I represent an area that has that rate now and has had it on many occasions in the past. I am therefore aware of what it means to an area, but not even in the Western Isles have we ever had the trauma of a whole industry collapsing overnight, with all the possible consequences. It will have a deleterious effect on local government in the Highlands. The Highland region will lose over 2 per cent. of its rateable income. The Dingwall—Wick railway line, which had receipts of over £500, 000 from freight charges and which is already heavily subsidised, will have its future operations called into question.
The Secretary of State referred to the cost of £16 million to keep the plant going. He said that as though the £16 million would be wasted and would disappear down the plughole. That money would keep the work going, keep the Highland region in some finances, keep the railways going and keep the ancillary industries going. That money would be an injection. Compared with some of the

injections that have been given to other industries in the United Kingdom, it would be peanuts. The right hon. Gentleman challenged anyone to say whether it should be spent. I believe that it should be spent and that it wound be money well spent.
The Prime Minister and her Scottish lackeys have caused more damage to the Highlands than has been caused since the days of Butcher Cumberland. The harsh and ill-timed announcement by the British Aluminium Company on the eve of the new year added insult to injury. Only a week before there had been a denial that the plant would close, despite a challenge to that effect. The timing of the redundancies has even cheated the work force out of earnings-related benefit. That was an unnecessary and cruel blow. There is great determination in the House and in the area to ensure that redundancy payments will not be paid and that the plant will have to be kept open for the benefit of the people of Invergordon and of the area.
Despite the Secretary of State's explanation today, I still believe that the Government were easily taken in. They were babes in the wood in dealing with the British Aluminium Company. It ran circles round Scottish Office Ministers. It is a disgrace and a scandal that the company should be better off as a result of the deal. It was quite a deal—in return for wiping out the £21·2 million outstanding loan the Government negotiators obtained absolutely nothing, not even a guarantee that the other plants would remain open. The company will close them next week if it suits it to do so, and the Secretary of State, despite his generous handout to the company, will be unable to do anything about it. He should have pinned the company down when he was handing out public money to it. Why did the Government not use the money to take the company into public ownership?
Shop stewards say that they were mystified by one aspect of the talks. On 30 December they were told by the chairman of the company that it would be prepared to consider a re-start if a reasonable cash injection were offered by the Government. However, when they contacted the Minister responsible for industry in the Scottish Office and the Minister of State, Department of Energy, they were told that there was no change in the company's decision to close. Finally, on 1 January, Mr. Utiger assured the shop stewards that he had not spoken to the Minister at the Scottish Office responsible for industry since before Christmas. Clearly credibility is called into question there.
The company itself is not guiltless. Only a week before the closure the management was assuring the work force that rumours of closure were unfounded. It has since become obvious that the company has no interest in keeping the plant operational or in any offers of help to do so.
The incident has conferred a mantle of incompetence, negligence and indifference on Government Ministers. The Secretary of State confirmed today that the company advised the Department of Industry as long ago as 6 October 1981 that it was in financial difficulty and feared closure. Yet this information was apparently not passed to the Scottish Office until December. I should be glad to know whether that is true.
This is not the first time that the Department of Industry has ignored the Scottish Office. Two years ago we lost the chance of a major microelectronics development by MOSTEK because of the "couldn't-care-less" attitude of the Department of Industry. The minor status of the


Scottish Office is a direct result of the continued reduction of the Scottish dimension in British politics. The recent sequence of disasters—Copach, Linwood and now Invergordon—heralds the collapse of the regional policies adopted by successive Governments.
Ownership of the smelter must be taken over either by the Highlands and Islands Development Board or by the Scottish Development Agency, free of capital cost. The taxpayers have already paid for it, and only Government incompetence has lost the money. If there is no permanent operator on the immediate horizon, the HIDB should be given control and responsibility for the re-start and maintenance of the smelter while the search for an operator is intensified.
We must look again at the power contract. Electricity should be supplied as cheaply as it is supplied to the Alcan plant. It is a pointer to the utter failure of the so-called cheap nuclear energy policy so long pursued by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that this state of affairs has come to pass. Even now that body refuses to change its policy.
It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State give an assurance that Torness would go forward and produce cheaper power, having said earlier in his speech that part of the problem at the Invergordon smelter was that the Hunterston reactor had not come up to expectations and the cost of fuel had been far greater than had been expected. If this Parliament continues as the British Parliament, and if Scotland is still represented here in 10 or 20 years—I hope that that will not be—I forecast that a future Secretary of State will be telling the House that the cost of power from Torness has far exceeded what was predicted in 1982. These lessons will never be learnt until it is far too late.
The Invergordon plant was no lame duck. It fulfilled many of the Government's criteria for success. It should not be compared with lame ducks such as De Lorean, which has been given a great deal of money and is to be bailed out again because the Government are intent on propping it up. In 10 years of operation there have been only one and a half days of industrial dispute at the Invergordon plant—an excellent record—and the quality of its finished product was second to none. Although the aluminium market is depressed, as the Secretary of State said, the Standard Research Institute has said that world production of aluminium will rise from 16 million tonnes in 1980 to 25 million tonnes by 1990. It is a product that will not disappear, but will be required in the future. Alas, however, if this closure is allowed to stick, that future in Scotland will be lost for ever.
The Government have been found wanting. The argument that Invergordon had to be allowed to close because other jobs would have been at risk does not hold water. How will the Kinlochleven plants be supplied with alumina? Will new piers and storage silos be constructed at Lochaber, and, if so, who will pay for them?
The way in which the Government have handled this issue has been shown to be a series of blunders. Once the future of the plant is assured they would do well to make amends by reversing their decision on the gas-gathering pipeline, which we had expected in the Highlands. As the Minister of State, Department of Energy is present, I may

say that I should have thought it was a matter for resignation on his part that that failed to materialise. On top of that failure we now have the Invergordon closure.
The Government must grasp the nettle and not allow the smelter to go out of existence. As has been said—by a Conservative councillor, I believe—it should be made available for public ownership, intact and gratis. The Government are able to do that if they so wish. If they have any regard at all for the people of the Highlands and of Invergordon, that is what they must do.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said. There can be no possible doubt that this matter is of enormous importance to the economy of the Highlands. Moreover, there can be no doubt that the trade unionists involved have behaved extremely well and worked hard. They fully deserve the public sympathy that they have received and continue to receive.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy has also worked extremely hard. He has been to the smelter several times and has spent countless hours working on the problem, virtually every day since. The Secretary of State and his colleagues were absolutely right to waive the £21 million to safeguard the 2, 700 jobs elsewhere in Scotland.
The situation is obviously extremely serious. If what has been done had not been done, it could have been even worse and jobs in Glasgow, Falkirk, Kinlochleven, Lochaber and Burntisland might also have been affected.
However, although the Government were fully justified in doing what they have done, I must express a reservation about the interpretation placed on the negotiations by the company. On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) quoted the chairman of British Aluminium as saying:
At no stage did the Government negotiators indicate that they had authority to offer any particular package either short or long term."—[Official Report, 19 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 255.]
The joint communiqué issued by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), and the chairman of British Aluminium, however, gives a different impression. It said:
The question of a break clause after 3 years was raised by Government during last month's negotiations. The Company felt that such a right of termination was inappropriate in the package under discussion which was aimed at securing the long term viability of the smelter".
It further stated:
Attempts were made by both sides to find an alternative arrangement which would have enabled the smelter to continue in operation. But the Government judged that the terms resulting from these negotiations which involved a substantial increase in subsidy to power supply on a long-term basis amounting to £16 million a year, represented an excessive burden for the taxpayer.
In other words, the Government were putting forward proposals to cover the next three years, with a renegotiation after three years, in order to see the smelter's operations through the worst of the recession. Unhappily, the company was putting forward long-term proposals indexed to the year 2000 and was not interested in any help which would not see it right through until then.
The Government were prepared to consider giving help on a short-term basis. It was discussed and turned down.
British Aluminium made it clear that it was not interested in a short-term solution. Even so, it has said that it would be interested in having a minority interest in a new company mounting a rescue scheme but would not wish to be the prime mover in any attempt to restart the smelter. In these circumstances, it seems that there is a very strong moral obligation on the company to see that the smelter is preserved intact so that another company moving in can receive all the equipment and take up the work from there.
All parties support the re-opening of the smelter. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend, the. Member for Edinburgh, North, in his speech on Tuesday said:
The first hurdle…will be to try and find a new operator…if such an operator is found, there is a further massive hurdle to be overcome in trying to work out a power contract which will provide a viable operation…"—[Official Report, 19 January, 1982; Vol. 16, c. 258.]
It seems that clearing the second hurdle, or giving some indication of how to clear it, may be of great importance in clearing the first hurdle. If I understood the Secretary of State, he was saying that a subsidy might be considered to the extent of £15 million to £20 million a year. Again, if I understood what he said correctly, the total running cost is somewhere in the region of £25 million. If he could say in percentage terms what kind of subsidy might be on offer, this would greatly help Locate in Scotland and the Highlands and Islands Development Board in their attempts to find a new operator. I hope some further indication of percentage may be given later on.
I would also ask the Minister to make urgent inquiries of other Ministries about the most appropriate and economic form of energy. In a recent press statement, Mr. John Armstrong, assistant managing director of the British Aluminium Company, was reported as saying:
As things have turned out, it might have been better for us to have built a coal-fired power station in the first place instead of planning to rely on cheap nuclear power.
It may well be that this option is no longer available but I sincerely hope that the possibility of hydro-electric power and other options will be examined by a team of experts so that they can weigh up the advantages of the different schemes. I understand that the smelter requires 200 MW of power all the time, and it would be valuable to know whether hydro-electric power schemes could supply the required power reasonably economically.
This brings me to the state of the aluminium market. Here I think I should mention a matter which is very much in the nature of a long shot. We all know that the Japanese Nissan car company may set up a factory somewhere in the United Kingdom and that there will probably be an announcement about this in the near future. If it does set up a plant employing several thousand people, it will be interesting to know what effect that will have on the aluminium market and whether any advantage can be gained from it.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: None whatever.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No stone should be left unturned. Even if the hon. Gentleman is right, it is well worth making inquiries.
I support the Secretary of State's action in making available £10 million to the Highland and Islands Development Board. Obviously, this is nothing like as much as one would wish but it will go a long way to helping with employment opportunities. I know that the

Secretary of State has done everything he can to find a short-term solution at a time when the company was losing £½ million a week. Indeed, even if the company had received all its energy requirements this last year free, it would probably still have made a loss. I wish my right hon. Friend every success, in the interests of those who work at Invergordon, in finding a solution to a difficult problem, to get the smelter working again and through the recession.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There has been one point of agreement in this debate so far, both in the House and elsewhere. It is that the closure of the smelter is an immense tragedy. Not only is it a disaster in its own right, however. It is yet one more example of the collapse of major industry in. Scotland. Two others come to mind: the closure of the Talbot Linwood car factory and the closure of the Fort William pulp mill. Other examples throughout Scotland could be quoted. Even worse than that, what we are seeing here is the collapse of decades of regional development policy. One of the saddest aspects of the discussions which have taken place in the public press is that some people are now beginning to question the wisdom of putting the smelter at Invergordon in the first place. I am not now speaking of the details of the power contract. I am referring to the principle of having a major employment industry in the Highlands or in any, other remote area.
The history of the Highlands is one of tragedy, of decline, of exploitation and of the migration of surplus population. It was to try to arrest this trend and to improve living standards and provide a secure future for Highlanders and their families that the Highlands and Islands Development Board was established, a decision, I feel compelled to remind the House, that was bitterly opposed by the Conservative Party. No one car. really imagine that a proper decent living and good employment prospects for the Highlands can be sustained by tourism, crofting or small business or even by a combination of all three.
No one is suggesting that we try to settle large industrial complexes which still, to some extent, exist even today in such as the Forth-Clyde valley. The whole ethos of establishing the smelter at Invergordon was an intelligent assessment of the facilities available married to the concept of improving the general life of the people in the area. I would like to stress, because I think an element of doubt has been introduced into this debate, that when the smelter was established there was no element of doubt about the success of this operation. No one said then that this was a dodgy business about which we ought to be rather careful. The whole idea was welcomed and we know that more than one company was interested in going to Invergordon.
The production at Invergordon was not meant for export so to some extent the depressed state of the international aluminium market is irrelevant. The smelter was designed specifically to provide for domestic needs. That is why the Government are to blame because of the collapse of industry in this country. That is why Invergordon is in difficulty. I say with certainty that the decision to put the smelter at Invergordon was correct at the time it was made. One of the greatest damages, apart from the immediate, short-term problems of Invergordon, which can be caused by the closure of the smelter and the controversy surrounding it is that in future Governments may hesitate


before they move large industries to remote areas and the Highlands. Because this Government have had their fingers burned over Invergordon, they and future Governments may be inhibited, which could damage the prospects for remote areas.
The Government's defence of their case to allow the closure of Invergordon rests broadly on three grounds: first, that time was short; secondly, that Invergordon had to go in order to safeguard other jobs in the company's operations; thirdly, that the rescue operation was too expensive. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millian) that the Government knew well in advance of December that the company was in trouble. Indeed, I believe that the Government knew well before 6 October that this company was in trouble, because the power contract was in dispute. What the Government should have done, immediately they knew of the difficulties about the power contract and the disputed charges, was to go to the company and discuss its whole future. It is really no use for Government to sit back, wait for and react to events. They must take the initiative. Long before they received a formal notice of closure, the Government should have had contingency plans available. That is what Governments are for. They must take the initiative. They must propose, and not simply react to events and dispose.
I do not believe that the company is free of blame. The management must have known that the Invergordon operation was running into trouble. If not, it was incompetent in leaving the matter until October. If it knew, it was scandalous for the company to wait until October before approaching the Government if not only the smelter but the company's whole existence was in jeopardy. That is what the company tells us. On page 2 of the document that British Aluminium sent to us, it said that it had three alternatives:
To improve the power contract substantially…
To terminate the power contract and close Invergordon.
To allow the whole group to go into liquidation".
It is nonsense that the company should leave the matter to that stage when its whole status was in jeopardy.
Despite the shortage of time claimed by the Government, even if we accept their case to that extent, it should still have been possible to put together a rescue package. We are advised that the company thought that such a package existed, even if it was not formally offered, right up until 17 December. I believe that the rescue package fell through because the Secretary of State capitulated to the Treasury. There can be no other construction.
The Government's second defence is that it was necessary to allow Invergordon to go to save the other jobs. No hon. Member wishes to be a prophet of gloom. None of us wants to send those in the other parts of British Aluminium's operations to bed tomorrow night worrying about their future. But the blunt truth is that we have had no assurances that the other jobs are safeguarded.
The Government should not have accepted from the company that the only choice was to close Invergordon or lose the lot. They should have been discussing with the company Invergordon and the other jobs, and should have put together a wider package to provide a secure future and

safeguard all the jobs, not allowing them to be picked off piece by piece. The Government are wholly negligent in this respect.
We are told that the rescue package was too expensive. There seems to be an issue whether the company wanted £16 million a year in perpetuity or an offer by the Government of a break in the contract. It does not seem to me to be beyond the bounds of reason to tell the company "We shall give you the £16 million a year". That could have been done without a break in the contract, but the Government could easily have written into the contract a clause saying that once the smelter became profitable again the price of electricity would be linked to rising profitability.
That solution would have assured the company of continuity beyond three years and at the same time safeguarded the Government for the time when, as we all hope, the economy picks up and that smelter is once again making profits. The Government could have done it if they had had the wit and the intelligence.
If it is said that a rescue package in the form of a subsidy of the company would be too expensive, the following issue arises. What assistance are the Government prepared to make available to any new owner or operator? If an extra £16 million was required by British Aluminium to keep Invergordon going, and if, as the Government still insist, that is too much, how much will be available in subsidy from the Government to have the plant reopened? Will it be an additional £12 million, £8 million or £4 million a year? We are entitled to know what the Government are willing to do to have it reopened with a new operator. We need an answer today, not in six months, if the company then says "That is it. The place will be broken up."
It would be the greatest irony if at the end of the day the Government, compelled by force of events, compelled by the fight put up by the people of Invergordon and the pressure of public opinion, made available the £16 million that they had refused to British Aluminium, having put the work force and their families through the trauma of closure and uncertainty over the next few months.
The whole matter has been badly handled both by the Government and by the company. Not the least aspect of that is that the last people to know what was happening were the work force. The loyal service of those who have been at the smelter for some time has been treated with contempt.
I regret to say that such contempt of the work force is not unusual. In Aberdeen a factory is to be closed on 9 March. The work force were told at the beginning of December that it was to close. We now learn from the company, Consolidated Pneumatic Tools, at Tullos that in November 1980—not last year—someone from the parent company went to see Mr. Robin Duthie at the Scottish Development Agency to discuss the company's future in Aberdeen, telling him that the company was in difficulties. After that the SDA made several approaches to the company, asking what help it wanted, and no response was received. Then we learnt that the place was to be closed. The problem is that no one in Aberdeen—none of the work force, none of the full-time union officials—was aware that the plant at Tullos was in such serious trouble that it was likely to close, with the statutory three months' redundancy notice.
Almost exactly the same thing is happening at Invergordon. It is something that is repeated time after


time. That example and the others that I have quoted show that the Government must put their house in order. They must have available a great deal of knowledge about the state of industry in Scotland. They must act with resolution.
The smelter at Invergordon must be reopened. The Government's preferred solution is clearly that a new operator should be found. What are they doing? We have been told that the Government owe it to the people of Invergordon to scour the world to find an operator. Who is doing the scouring? We are told today that it is Mr. Gordon Drummond, who has some experience in aluminium. I hope that more than one man is doing the job.

Mr. McQuarrie: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday and again today he would know that the Scottish Development Agency, Locate in Scotland, the Scottish Office and the Department of Industry are scouring the world to find another operator. It is not Mr. Drummond on his own. The hon. Gentleman should have been listening if he has the least interest in ensuring that the smelter is reopened at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Hughes: It is always a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who always states the obvious. It has been confirmed that it is not simply one man who is scouring the world for another operator, but we have not had an answer to the question of what package is on offer. I go further and ask whether there is a package on offer. Do the Government have a package, so that if a potential operator comes to them tomorrow or in a week or in a fortnight they can say "Here is the offer. Have a look at it, and let us negotiate"? I suspect that the answer is that the Government have no package on offer. They should be clear about what they are trying to do and let us know.
I have doubts about whether a buyer can be found, for simple commercial reasons. If one believes that British Aluminium is an efficient company—I have heard no one suggest that it is not—if it cannot make a profit at Invergordon in the circumstances, neither can any other private operator. No private operator will come to Invergordon for social reasons. Private operators will come only if they can have a good price and make some money out of it.
An alternative, which has already been suggested by the local authorities in the area, is public ownership of the Invergordon smelter. We shall probably have to go further and take into public ownership not only the Invergordon smelter but the whole of British Aluminium, if we are serious about protecting the jobs in the future.
Whatever other lessons are to be taken from this episode, and however optimistic we may be—I remain optimistic—that Invergordon can be reopened, there is one other lesson which even the Government must be aware of. Linwood, Fort William and Invergordon are each part of a whole industrial tragedy. They will be repeated again and again and again until the Government are willing to change their entire economic and industrial strategy. I suspect that the Government are incapable of doing that. Therefore, the sooner they go and allow a Labour Government to take over to begin to try to repair the damage, the better.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), who, I hope, will not intervene as often in my speech as he did during the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, let me say at the outset that there is not one hon. Member on either side of the House who has not the deepest sympathy for the work force at Invergordon. The BACO was the backbone of employment in the Cromarty Firth. If the smelter is allowed to remain closed the area will be reduced to a wilderness of closed factories, shops and houses, with the lives of thousands of good people and their children ruined. It is under those circumstances that we must look at the position. We must also be prepared to look at it realistically, in the knowledge that there is no alternative to restoring the smelter to full production, and it must be done with the least possible delay.
At the end of this week the work force will collect the final week's wages, leaving only one week's lying time to be collected. Redundancy pay has been in dispute. This will hold up any additional income which the labour force might hope to have to tide it over the immediate future.
It is not the impact of the money situation that is causing the deepest concern at Invergordon. It is the fact that the smelter has closed down and that there is no alternative employment in the area. At the jobcentre in Tain yesterday only three vacancies were available, none of which was suitable for any of the BACO employees.
We have heard from my right hon. Friend the background to the closure. We have also listened to Opposition Members condemning the Government's failure to keep the smelter open. This is what we on these Benches would have expected from the Opposition, who have to accept a great deal of the blame for what has happened. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) at the Labour Party conference in Scarborough in 1967 stated that the Government were ready to discuss with the industry the provision of one or more smelters.

Mr. George MacKenzie: I am astonished to hear the hon. Member say that. Perhaps he would care to hold a conversation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because in the discussions that we had about this business in 1976 his right hon. Friend, then speaking as the Member for Ayr, said:
It was an imaginative and right thing to do and it was to the immense benefit of the area that we should attract British Aluminium there. I am extremely pleased that it has settled in so well".—[Official Report, 11 May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 31.]
If his right hon. Friend thought that it was an imaginative and right thing to do, it is astonishing that his Back Benchers are not supporting him in that point of view tonight.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, but he has misinterpreted what I was saying. I was saying that at the Labour Party conference in October 1967 the right hon. Member for Huyton said that the time was ripe for the creation of these industries and one or more smelters. Later that day the then Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs, Mr. Edmund Dell, made the optimistic statement that British Aluminium would build a 100, 000-ton smelter plant at Invergordon, together with a 240, 000-ton alumina plant in the same area, both to be powered by nuclear power. However, despite this statement, the Invergordon


smelter did not commence with nuclear power. It was compelled to reach an agreement with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for the supply of power.
The contract for the power, which was to last until the year 2000, was 1·7p per unit of electricity. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millian), this was against 1p per unit which Alcan was paying at Blyth and 1·3p which RTZ was paying at Anglesey. It might interest the House to know that the cost to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to produce a unit of electriciy is 0·8p. When one looks at the 0·8p and at the 1·7p which was the charge in the agreement between the parties when the smelter was set up, it is clear that the agreement reached by the Labour Government in 1968 was the start of the rot which has finally caused the collapse of the smelter.
From 1971, when the smelter opened, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, now Lord Ross of Marnock, failed miserably to ensure that the agreement made between the company and the NSHEB was viable, especially as the taxpayer was to foot the bill for any losses by the company over its power costs. Since 1971 it has cost the taxpayer £180 million. If the agreement had continued to the year 2000 it would have cost the taxpayer a further £288 million, taking it on the basis of £16 million a year at today's prices.

Mr. Robert Hughes: May I ask the hon. Member a simple question? Is he now saying that the smelter should not have been established at Invergordon?

Mr. McQuarrie: No, I am not saying that. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I appeal for your support in asking the hon. Member for Dunfermline at least to give me the opportunity to make my speech rather than making comments from a sedentary position?
My reply to the question by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is that I am not suggesting that the smelter should not have been put at Invergordon. Contrary to what some other people think, I accept that it is right to popularise the rural areas. One way to increase the populace is to establish an operation like that, provided it is ensured that it will be viable, but it must not be forgotten that since this factory was placed there, only in one year of its operation has it made a profit. I am not prepared to argue about it, for the simple reason that I was completely in favour of ensuring that that work went to Invergordon.

Mr. Douglas: If I may say so, the hon. Member seems to be in a revolving door argument. He seems to be suggesting to the House that it was right to put the smelter there, but that it is wrong for us to subvent it because it is costing the taxpayer £x million; however, to make it viable we should have subvented it by even more to get the power costs down. Am I incorrect in those assumptions?

Mr. McQuarrie: Yes, the hon. Member is incorrect. I am not suggesting that we should not have subvented it. What I am suggesting is that any subvention that was agreed should have been agreed between BACO and the hydro-electric board in such a way that it was a viable proposition. If it needed a certain amount of Government subsidy, that subsidy should have been put in. I was

merely quoting the kind of money that would have been required had we continued the contract that my right hon. Friend has terminated. If the Government of the day had examined the ongoing subsidies they would surely have given thought to the creation of a power station at Invergordon, as suggested by one of my hon. Friends, which would have reduced dramatically the losses and made the plant more viable.
All those matters are behind us, and it is not at them that we should look today, but at how and when we can put the smelter back into operation. As was said by the right hon. Member for Craigton, it is reported today in several national newspapers that talks are well advanced on putting together a package to reopen the smelter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell the House more about that, because when it was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend gave a negative response.
As has been said by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the Financial Times and The Scotsman, which the right hon. Member for Craigton said he had not seen, but which I have been fortunate to see, people are not only interested, but the HIDB has a short list of six firms that are interested in taking over the smelter. If that is a fact, as the right hon. Member for Craigton said—and I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree—the House has a right to know. It is not only the House that has a right to know, but the workers in Invergordon, who are standing by doing nothing wrong, begging for their jobs, to which they are justifiably entitled.

Mr. Robert Hughes: They are not begging. They are fighting for their jobs.

Mr. McQuarrie: When I say begging, I mean that those people want to return to their jobs. British Aluminium has blatantly thrown them out of those jobs.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House about the six firms that the HIDB has shortlisted as being willing and suitable to take over the smelter. We do not want any more lies or deceit on that issue. [Interruption.] I am not referring to the Government when I say that. We do not want lies such as we had at the end of August 1981, when Mr. Ronald Utiger claimed that only £6 million of disputed charges to the hydro-electric board in the first six months of 1981 had prevented the smelter from making a profit. If that was so, it is criminal that British Aluminium decided to back out. A firm the size of British Aluminium should have been able to stand a loss of £6 million. Such figures have not been mentioned to the Government.
The Scotsman of 30 December said:
Ronald Utiger claims only £6 million of disputed charges to Hydro Board in the first six months of this year prevent smelter being in the black.
If that prevented the smelter from being in the black, the company could have kept on the 890 workers who are being made redundant at Invergordon.
In October 1981 the financial director of British Aluminium made a statement denying that there was any intention to close Invergordon. Finally, two months later, the statement was made that to keep Invergordon in operation would seriously threaten British Aluminium's whole group. Where are we with British Aluminium? How can anyone believe anything that is said by British


Aluminium? As the right hon. Member for Craigton said, two weeks before the factory closed the work force was not aware that that would happen.
That was disgraceful conduct by a firm that calls itself British Aluminium. It denigrates the word "British" by acting in that manner towards 890 people who are dependent on that factory for their jobs. Is there any wonder that the work force is bewildered when it is subjected to such deceitful actions by British Aluminium?
Another factor that the Government must consider is the 997E casting head, the facility to use it and the material from it that sells at £900 per ton. There is also the 109 wired bar head. Both those heads produce material for Swansea. I understand that those two operations at Invergordon cannot be carried out anywhere else in Britain, if not in the world. I have been advised that British Aluminium wants to employ 54 people to carry out those two operations and dispatch the material to Swansea by sea from the pier. Does British Aluminium honestly think that any 54 of the 890 people who have been made redundant will rat on their fellow workers to take on those jobs? There is no way in which British Aluminium will get supplies from Invergordon as long as the smelter remains closed.
The Government must also ensure that British Aluminium is not allowed to remove machinery from the plant or to obstruct the efforts of any of the interested parties to get the smelter back into operation. It is tragic that when the Government were negotiating to write off the hydro-electric board's claims against British Aluminium they did not insist upon the right to control the smelter buildings, of which the book value is only £20 million.
Another factor that could have saved the smelter was the installation of computer control, which would have put a break in the process. It would also have affected the cell voltage, which would have reduced the power costs of running the smelter. I am led to believe that the cost of the computers, which are lying in Manchester, was to be £750, 000 for 20. If the company had computerised, the whole factory could have been self-financing and it would have remained open.
Why the Government could not consider all those matters is beyond me. We have poured millions of pounds into British Leyland and we are now faced with the possibility of a whole area being decimated if we allow the smelter to remain closed. Until a buyer is found, the Government must seriously consider maintaining the plant and the work force. That area is not the Midlands of England, but a part of rural Scotland, where people's livelihood depends upon their employment at the smelter. The jobs of many thousands of other people who are affected by the disaster could also be saved.
There must be one more top priority for the Government in securing the opening of the smelter. Politics should not enter into the matter. What matters is the human misery that is being caused to the people of Ross and Cromarty, who have had their livelihood snatched away by a company with no soul. The Government are desperately trying to find a buyer, but now that the smelter is closed there is little chance of its opening again. Despite the shortage of money, and at the risk of not cutting income tax in the Budget on 9 March, if a cut is envisaged, the Government should step in and put the smelter back into operation so that any future owner or consortium can take it over as a going concern.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the efforts that he and his Ministers have made so far. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who has been exploring every avenue so that the smelter can be reopened. I hope that the people in his constituency appreciate the countless hours that he has spent trying to find a solution to this serious problem.
Let me say to the workers of Invergordon "We are not out to give you sympathy. We are desperately trying to get you back to work. You have behaved in a most responsible manner under these terrible circumstances. Please do nothing that will upset the work that is going on to reopen the plant. If, after every avenue has been explored, failure has to be admitted, it will not have been for the want of trying to save your jobs, your homes, and your way of life". The plant must not be allowed to die. It is up to all of us, on both sides of the House, to work towards a solution to the problem.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) has made a forthright, direct and, indeed, courageous speech for which he must be complimented. I agreed with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who pointed out that the subject we are debating is not only a terrible event but that, as in the case of the pulp mill at Corpach, the smelter was thought to be a sound, reliable provider of employment in the Highlands for as far ahead as one could reasonably see. With the best will in the world, the same cannot be said for the various rig construction units and yards on which many people in the Highlands depend for work. We are discussing the destruction of what was seen as the safe part of the developing and interrelated industrial base of the Highlands. That is the worrying aspect. It should be a factor much to the fore in the Government's thinking.
Hon. Members are discussing what is undoubtedly a complicated issue. It is difficult to assess thoroughly without considerable knowledge of the technical requirements of the industry and some informed assessment of the prospects for the industry. The problem is made more difficult because different experts say different things. I have always found one of the more stressful aspects of the life of an hon. Member, trying to do the best he can, is that he frequently has to struggle with technical issues of which he may have a limited understanding, but knows at the end that political decisions have to be taken on the basis of technical assessments.
During the recess, on the issue of cheap power, which is a central issue and one on which British Aluminium concentrated in its initial statement, I put a proposition to the Secretary of State involving the transfer of hydro resources to the company on a "reversion to the State" argument, but found ultimately that the base figures were inaccurate. I have written to the Secretary of State to apoligise. I wish to return to the question, but I should like first to say that it will not be part of my purpose to argue that the Government have had bad intentions or that the Government in 1967–68 had bad intentions. But even Governments, who have much greater access than individuals to information, can make mistakes. I suggest


that the present Government may well have made some mistakes. I do not, however, question their good intentions.
The basic issue is whether the Government could have taken action that would have enabled British Aluminium to continue. There was a loss of £20 million in 1981 with its possible effect on the company's future. I am not sure how the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East arrived at the figure of £6 million. Three months warning was given. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has referred to the approach made on 6 October in the context that this had not been made clear previously. The point was not taken up by the Secretary of State. It is my understanding that on 6 October the company came to the Government with a written document. It was not a casual chat with officials. That is what I am told.
Given that situation, one is faced with trying to clear up the differences that have emerged between the Government and the company about what was said during the negotiations. It must be a matter of great concern when an experienced company and the Government are negotiating on a question of such critical and urgent importance that a dispute should arise over what they said to each other. It should not happen. The expertise exists to avoid that. According to what Mr. Utiger told me on Tuesday, the company was asked by the Government to make proposals about what would be necessary to keep the company going. The company produced a package. It was only then that the Government suggested a seventh point to be added to the six point package by the company suggesting a three-year break clause. The company, I understand, argued that the three-year agreement was inadequate for investment. Money had to be invested. If there was a possibility that it would be broken off after three-years this would affect the whole accounting procedure.
The Government argued in turn that conditions might change. This has been the Government's argument for some time.
They said that the recession might go away, that things would get better, and that they might therefore find themselves in the highly unpopular political position of having given extra support to the company and the company then making a large profit. As the right hon. Member for Craigton remarked, the company put up a proposition for some sort of profit threshold. The argument, I understand, was never properly developed during the negotiations which ended on 18 December with the Government saying that the package was too expensive.
Mr. Utiger says flatly that at no time did the Government say that they would accept the package produced by the company if the company in turn accepted the three-year limit. Nor was the idea developed of a profit threshold in the event of things getting better generally. I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State and also noted the statement by the Minister on 7 January. I still do not feel that the issue is properly resolved. The three-year limit, according to Mr. Utiger this Tuesday, and obviously repeated to the right hon. Member for Craigton yesterday, was never made in his view a fundamental part of the negotiations. Whether, if it had been made a basic part of the negotiations, this would have altered things, I am not in a position to say. But there is undoubtedly a dispute

about the matter. Mr. Utiger says one thing and the Government say another. That is not good enough. The Secretary of State shakes his head. However, that is fact. It must be a matter of concern.
Secondly, there is the question of power costs. The right hon. Member for Craigton has developed a powerful and well documented argument involving the related position in Anglesey and Lynemouth. The right hon. Gentleman said that the figure was not a new £16 million. It is £8 million added to £8 million. I should like to clear up this question of figures. According to the minutes of evidence of the Committee on Scottish Affairs on 15 June, the table on page 10 shows the support for nationalised industries other than transport industries. As paragraph 5 at the bottom of page 11 states:
Provision is made for payments for the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board towards its losses under the 1968 contract to supply electricity to British Aluminium at Invergordon.
The figures are given from 1975 and include a projection to 1984. The figure for 1977–78 is £17 million and thereafter £8 million, £12 million, £14 million, £11 million in 1981–82, followed by £10 million and £10 million again in 1983–84. It is not clear what proportion of that figure relates to the Invergordon subsidy. I should like to know that proportion. I should also like to know the answer to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Craigton that was not really answered.

Mr. Millan: I was saying that the smelter deficit order that we debated on 22 July last year for the year 1980–81 provided a sum of £8·7 million at that time. It is the difference between that and the £16 million that I was referring to as additional money. That is approximately equivalent to 0·5p per unit of electricity consumed at Invergordon. The figure is even better than that from the point of view of my argument. In earlier years, including 1979–80, the smelter deficit was considerably more than £8·7 million. I speak from memory. In the year 1979–80, it was I think £15 million, which is not much different from the £16 million. It is one thing to do that for one year in special circumstances and quite another to do it for 20 years. I accept that, but my point is that the £16 million has been presented as new money, and that is highly misleading. I do not think that the Secretary of State has ever denied my assertion on that.

Mr. Johnston: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is of great interest to the House to know that, on a previous occasion, the level of subsidy was touching £15 million, when the figure of £16 million was thought to be intolerable.

Mr. Younger: Let us not make a mystery where none exists. I have never suggested that the £16 million was all new money. It was perfectly clear that it was the annual subsidy that would be needed if the contract were to carry through every year until 2000. We have enough mysteries already without creating new ones.

Mr. Johnston: I can see that the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State wish to use me as a means of getting at each other.

Mr. Millan: I do not wish to intervene on an intervention, but it is not true to say that the matter has always been made clear. I doubt whether it was made clear to many hon. Members until I made the point this


afternoon. I have now been able to check the figure, and the deficit refunded in 1979–80 was, as I had thought, £15 million.

Mr. Johnston: That is a basic point and I do not wish to labour it, as time is against us. What emerges from the exchanges via the right hon. Member for Craigton and the Secretary of State is that there was recently a time when the Government paid a subsidy that was only £1 million short of what the Government have presently shied away from. That is of interest.
I should also like to press the Secretary of State on the figures that were produced by the right hon. Member for Craigton showing the differences between the power costs in Alcan, Rio Tinto-Zinc and BACO. They go up from 1p for Alcan to 1·3p for RTZ and 1·7p for BACO. I am still not at all clear how Anglesey and Lynemouth are subsidised or on what basis it is done, and why, if it is done in those cases it is not thought appropriate to recast the arrangement for Invergordon and do it there too.
It seems to be evident from what I have been told that the proposition that I originally put with regard to hydro power is not possible as a complete solution, because it would, as the Secretary of State said, involve between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the total hydro capacity. That would have a corresponding impact on the general tariff of the hydro hoard, because it would be taking out the low-cost element. That would inevitably have the effect of leaving only the high cost element, which would have to be put up still higher in order to make the company operate economically.
There is, however, no doubt that a hydro solution could provide a significant part of the full solution, and I should like to know the Government's view about it. It is essential to the possibility of having any new tenant at Invergordon that some arrangement should be made, and it is clearly essential to the future of the plant.
Thirdly, I should like to hear the Government's considered prognosis on aluminium demand. The company says that it is affected by the general recession and that it cannot sell aluminium. Figures have been quoted showing that in the United States of America there is under 60 per cent. capacity, that there is stockpiling, and that half the plants that were planned in Australia are not now going ahead, so that we are in a bad general situation. At the same time, the Highlands and Islands Development Board has produced a report that says that things look good. Who is right? I am in no position to say who is right. What do the Government think?
Fourthly, it seems clear that a significant factor in terms of carrying the losses was the size of British Aluminium. In other words, it seems fair to say that, if BACO had been larger, it could have faced its plight better than it did. It seems fair to suggest that Alcan or RTZ could have done better.
Particularly given the remarks of the right hon. Member for Craigton about Falkirk, it is most important that the Government should be able to give some assurance as to the position in Fort William and Kinlochleven. The Secretary of State must know that the position at Fort William is still very raw after the pulp mill experience. The right hon. Member for Craigton mentioned that Wiggins Teape might be dismantling before the Elias Robertson proposals go through the Scottish Development Agency. I saw Mr. Elias last weekend and was in touch

with the Scottish Office on Monday on the matter. I know that this is not directly relevant, but if the Minister is able to mention it in his reply, I shall be most grateful to him.
Fifthly and lastly, it is clear that British Aluminium will not go back to Invergordon. There will have to be a new company. That means that a solution to the power cost must be found. We have not yet heard a clear view about plant cost, but that will also be necessary.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East referred to the article in the Financial Times. It would be of value if the Minister were to make some reference to it. I still find it irksome, as a Member of Parliament, that journalists appear to be able, at the drop of a hat, to learn much more than we are ever able to discover or are ever told. I should like to lay stress upon the statement in the article that, because of the severity of the closure's impact on the region, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is believed to be ready to use £10 million over three years promised to the area in order to assist a rescue operation, rather than directing the money into promoting new industry. That is not a proposition that I am opposing in any way, but I should like to know a little more about the progress being made by the Government and the HIBD towards producing a package for a new tenant. That matter is most important. The Secretary of State has said that he wishes to speak clearly. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be willing to do that.
A great many hon. Members have said that this is a tragedy. That was said on Tuesday night, when my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised it on the Adjournment. All hon. Members in all parts of the House are deeply concerned about it. I do not think that any of us will give the Government much rest until we are assured that everything possible is done. Many of us believe that it is possible to save the smelter, and that somehow that must be achieved.

Mr. Alex Pollock: I am pleased to follow the thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), and to give another viewpoint from the Highlands. Although many harsh winds were blowing through the Highlands over new year, none was as cold as the awful news about the closure of the smelter.
Living as I do on the other side of the Moray Firth, I can confirm that the implications are seen to affect not merely Easter Ross but the whole of the north of Scotland. It seems incredible that a plant that was built to give security and industrial success to the Highlands could close so suddenly and with such little warning.
I should like to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, who, of course, cannot take part in the debate tonight. From my personal knowledge, I confirm the keen sense of tragedy that he felt when faced by the closure. He spent many anxious days, subsequent to the news, in trying to do what he could to co-operate with his colleagues in the Government to find a solution, and I pay tribute to him for that.
In the debate, hon. Members have chosen to deal with various aspects. Some have chosen to discuss the history of the energy contract. Others have concentrated their remarks on the behaviour of British Aluminium's management and the timing of the announcement. I shall examine in a more general way the social and economic implications for the north of Scotland.
We have to accept that BACO has decided to quit Invergordon and leave the work force to its own fate, so the Government must concentrate their energy on two options. They can encourage a new consortium to go in and take over the plant. I urge the Government to ensure that the early promises by BACO of co-operation over the transfer of the necessary land and plant will be carried out. The company appears to have undertaken co-operation and I trust that it will co-operate, particularly in the light of what we have been told by the Secretary of State about the financial arrangements agreed between the Government and the company so far. The least that we can expect of BACO management now is to make available as quickly, fairly and reasonably as possible the necessary land and plant.
I also trust that the Government will work extremely closely with the Highland board in exploring the possibility of new purchasers for the plant. One key ingredient must be any future energy price package. One of the disputes that has been aired in the press this week has been that between the chairman of the Highland board and Lord Kirkhill, chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Each takes a different view of the statutory duties and obligations of the hydro-electric board. I hope that the Minister can confirm that his officials are working as hard as possible to try to bring this dialogue to a conclusion with an authoritative view of exactly what the powers of the hydro-electric board are in that regard.
If no new consortium or single operator can be found to succeed British Aluminium, then every effort must be made to try to find other industrial uses for the plant. When the Government carry out such studies, I hope that they will bear in mind not just the plant and the equipment but, the fact that the type of industry must be relevant to the skills of the work force which is already there.
The Government have already said that the Highland board is working on a parallel inquiry and that other Government agencies are involved. Can the Minister assure us that if it is found that the extra injection of £10 million is not sufficient for the full completion of these inquiries they will not hesitate to make such funds available as may be required to ensure an industrial future for Easter Ross? Can the Minister also confirm that the £10 million additional funds so far made available are not to be applied throughout the Highlands but are specifically identified to help industrial regeneration in Easter Ross?
I have mentioned two options and I do not believe that any others can be considered. We can argue about whether the smelter should have gone there in the first place and we can debate the wisdom of the energy price contract that was attempted, but the important fact now is to remember not just the presence of the plant but the presence of the work force with no other obvious place to go.
In addition, let us remember the huge investment in the Highlands infrastructure. I have not seen any accurate costing of infrastructure but it must be substantial. The most obvious items are roads, schools and houses. It is estimated that to cope with the workers, 50 per cent. of whom were local and 50 per cent. of whom came from outside, about 600 or 700 houses had to be built. Huge costs are involved in improving relevant roads and ancillary facilities. We must not allow them to have been created for no good purpose.
Let us also remember the industrial ramifications beyond Easter Ross. In my constituency I see the implications beginning to reveal themselves. One engineering company has already laid off its specialist work force committed to the maintenance of the BACO plant. The management of a sawmill is contemplating laying off some of its work force because of the specialist equipment that it supplied to the plant. Shop retailers with branches in Inverness are already redoing their sums in the knowledge that spending power will not be available in the area. The investment is so colossal that we cannot be allowed to abandon it now.
I add my tributes to those which have been made to the local work force for the way in which it has behaved. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) spoke about the work record there. My information confirms his. Only one and half days were lost in two and a half years. That is not a bad example to set the rest of the country.
A typical member of that work force provides the best illustration of the human problem. I refer to a local man who is a time-served welder. He worked in England for about eight years but then the smelter provided him with a chance to return home. He built his house and his wife and four children live there with him. At the beginning of December he had security and pride. By the end of the month he had lost both.
I am trying to convey to the House that we must accept that the Government of the day believed that the smelter would provide long-term prosperity and employment for Easter Ross and for the Highlands in general. We must now live with the inheritance of those expectations. Above all, the work force at Invergordon must be given real hope. The workers now look to the Government to sustain that hope. I trust that in the anxious days ahead they will not be let down.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am happy to speak after the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock). Government Members have made a number of interesting speeches on the issue. I hope that they will face the fact that the Tory Party's credibility in Scotland is on the line tonight. It is all very well for hon. Members to pay compliments to the Minister of State, Department of Energy, but he will be judged on the basis of whether the smelter reopens. When somebody can sit for a constituency and lose the gas gathering system and then lose a smelter one must ask "When will Scottish Tories stand up and fight?" I hope that a number of Scottish Tories will at least abstain tonight.
The issue goes much wider than simply the immediate impact on the Highlands. It is a major disaster for the Scottish economy, and the Scottish electricity and coal industries.
The Minister referred to Torness, but I wish that he had said a little more about the Scottish coal industry. It is not enough to say that the National Coal Board in Scotland is successfully finding export outlets for coal. We are considering here miners' jobs and a tremendous blow to the Scottish energy industries. I hope that the Minister will respond more fully on that.
Let us consider the matter not on social considerations, but on the most objective economic appraisal. We do not have much evidence from the avoidance of closures in Scotland that social considerations figure prominently in the Government's consideration of these matters.
Therefore, let us consider the issue in terms of hard economics. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, to his credit, brought out some of the hard economics, although I do not suggest that he is insensitive to the social implications.
We are considering a massive reduction in the Exchequer's net income not only through the payment of unemployment or supplementary benefits, but through a loss of income tax and value added tax. As regards the surplus energy capacity to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) referred, what is the sense of creating an energy capacity and not using it? What prices are put in the equation for that, for the unemployed miners' and the jobs of electricity supply workers?
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about an astronomical sum, but I hope that the HIDB study will not simply consider smelters on the Continent or elsewhere in the world. I hope that both the board and the Public Accounts Committee will consider the whole economic cost to the Exchequer of all the smelters.
The issue is when the Government will secure the reopening of the smelter. I read with considerable interest, as did other hon. Members, reports in the press this morning. However, British Aluminium owns the smelter and why on earth the Government allowed themsleves to make a deal—that great pay-off to British Aluminium—without acquiring or at least taking an option on the smelter, I do not know. Is someone going to tell me that British Aluminium does not have an interest in the new power contract to be made available? I understand the common sense of my right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton and the attitude of the work force towards British Aluminium, but the obvious company to reopen the smelter is British Aluminium.
Given the mess that the Government have made, it seems unlikely that British Aluminium will be prepared to transfer the assets at a knock-down price to another company or consortium to operate with a much bigger subsidy than BACO has been offered by the Government. I hope that the Minister will face up to the issues. It would be great if the Highlands and Islands Development Board could acquire the smelter and establish a consortium, perhaps with a British Aluminium stake. However, the real issue is how much money the Government will put on the line.
I notice that the Government are very reticent when informing us about the cost to the Exchequer of the Alcan and Rio Tinto-Zinc smelters. I hope that the Minister will face up to the issues because it is irrelevant whether the National Coal Board or the Central Electricity Generating Board carries the subsidy. The Government have a responsibility to secure the reopening of the Invergordon smelter.

Mr. John MacKay: This is a sorry day for the Highlands and, especially, Easter Ross and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) explained that the road began in the white heat of the technological revolution started by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). Smelters were to be built and fuelled by electricity competitively priced with nuclear electricity.
The determination towards nuclear electricity persuaded Alcan, which was interested in going to Invergordon at that time, to move away because it preferred a coal-fired power station, as it now has in the North of England, to taking electricity from the grid.
I recently read a report which stated that somebody might be interested in Invergordon on the basis of returning to the Alcan idea of a coal-fired power station. The economics of that are a bit puzzling, but I ask whether that might be a possibility. If Mr. Gordon Drummond arid those considering the matter found someone who did not want an electricity supply because, bearing in mind the objections made in 1968, they were doubtful about today's electricity projections, would the Government be prepared to give the necessary financial support for a coal-fired station?
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) mentioned the details of the all-important contracts, but they were not made public. I was surprised at the way the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) went on at the Minister about the contracts of the other two smelters because he was in the Government in 1968. He knew that those contracts were kept secret. On 24 July 1968, when asked to give details of the contracts, the President of the Board of Trade said:
I cannot tell him the price. It is never revealed in contracts of this kind."—[Official Report, 24 July 1968; Vol. 769, c. 586.]
However, we know that the Invergordon contract was tied to Hunterston. By 1976 the Labour Government faced the problem of taking powers to protect the consumers of the North of Scotland board from the losses made in the smelter contract. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) had a part to play in that. He said then that, on the gloomiest forecast, the nation would pay about £200 million to the end of the century. Fortunately for the right hon. Gentleman he said that it gave him "no pleasure" to think that it might be much higher. After five years, we have already paid £113 million. Therefore, the taxpayer will have paid an enormous sum by the end of the century.
I do not suggest that the 1968 Government alone had the wrong crystal ball. On the face of it, it appears that Alcan had a better crystal ball but, as I have read in the Hansard debates of that time, the House was united in wanting smelters powered by electricity. The smallest doubt crept in during the questions put by my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). In answer to one of his questions the present Lord Ross of Marnock said that the contractual arrangements had been carefully designed to ensure that the smelter would bear the full cost of the power and that no burden would fall on other consumers. That idea was carefully designed around an assumption based on a hopelessly optimistic assumption of nuclear costs. Projections assumed that by this time nuclear costs would be less than hydro costs. The reality, of course, is that the costs are 1·9p for nuclear and 0·8p per unit for hydro power.
Some critics seem to think that the cost of nuclear power per unit is more than that of other systems. It is not; it is below the cost of coal and oil. It has proved to be uncompetitive not against coal and oil, but against hydro power.
In the 1980 debate on the smelter order, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who has taken a keen interest from his stand on nuclear power, said that it was not Invergordon's fault that the rash


expectations about the cheapness of nuclear electricity 10 years before had not come to fruition. While accepting that the power contract was fatally flawed, we must consider how we can help the men at Invergordon.
I read with interest the proposals of Admiral Dunbar Naismith of the HIDB, which were taken up by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), that hydro power could be earmarked for Invergordon. I have had a superficial look at the suggestion and its consequences and I listened with interest to the Secretary of State's comments. As the hon. Member for Inverness said, Invergordon would take more than half the hydro output of the North board—1, 765 million of its 3, 234 million units. There would be the added problem that the hydro power that we can get, given the geography of the Highlands, is not geared to the 24-hour day after day generation needed by Invergordon. Fortunately, the plants at Kinlochleven and Fort William, which are smaller, can cope, except in the driest of summers, by using electricity from their own hydro station in the hills.
However, the earmarking of hydro does not necessarily involve a hydro unit having to move to the Invergordon smelter. I think that it could be done on an accounting basis. There is no doubt that if the hydro board were to lose cheap hydro by supplying the Invergordon smelter at 0·8 pence per unit, there would be an effect on other consumers. I suspect that electricity charges in the North board's area would rise to an unacceptable level. Certainly this customer of the board would view the increase as unacceptable and I believe that others would share my view.
However, spreading the loss among all customers in Scotland might produce different calculations. I was not able to come to a firm conclusion with the use of my pocket calculator, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could suggest what would be the consequences of spreading the loss among other consumers.
I am surprised that some Labour Members who were in the House in 1968 are still asking what goes on at Anglesey. With little research, I discovered from Hansard that the CEGB spreads the loss on that contract among other consumers. There is a precedent for my suggestion. The CEGB consumers rather than the Government pay out in Anglesey.
If my suggestion were feasible, I would not want the system to stop at Invergordon. It could be an attraction to industry in the Highlands if some hydro power were earmarked for industrial purposes. For example, the only way that we will get a pulp mill in the Highlands is to go for a mechanical process and the problem there is the same as the Invergordon problem—the unit cost of electricity.
I was a little surprised that Lord Kirkhill tried to shrug off the 1943 Act which set up the board to exploit the water power resources of the Highlands by producing cheap electricity which would help to regenerate the local economy. The hydro board has done a splendid job in the domestic market, which helps to regenerate the local economy because it gives people the sort of standard of living that others have in the rest of the country.
However, perhaps we should respond more directly to the original obligation and consider the suggestion that I have made. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give answers tonight, because I am sure that it is a long and complex matter, but I ask him for an

assurance that the Scottish Office is looking at the possibility and its consequences, both to North board and South board consumers. Indeed, I go further and ask whether there is a possibility of a marriage between help from the Government and help from the generating boards along the lines of the Anglesey contract.
It would be wrong to concentrate only on the smelter. We have to look at other possibilities. I should like to mention another source of employment in the Highlands that the Government ought to be considering. Exciting work has been done at Dounreay on the fast breeder reactor and we need the next stage of that development. I know that the SNP would close Dounreay because it does not approve of nuclear energy, but I do not agree. We should move on to the next stage of building a prototype fast reactor at Dounreay.
If we have learned anything about the AGR programme, it is that one should move slowly to big stations. It is time for a prototype fast breeder reactor, which would give a boost to the economy of the Highlands and the confidence of the area. The HIDB has been given £10 million for the next three years specifically to help in Easter Ross. If the board uses that sum within three years and believes that it can profitably use more, will the Scottish Office be prepared to add to the £10 million?
It is disappointing that British Aluminium showed no interest in a short-term arrangement. The offer to write off £47 million and to give an annual subsidy of £16 million for three years was fair to the company, the work people and the taxpayer. Nothing that I have seen or heard in the past two or three weeks has removed my distinct impression that the company wanted out of Invergordon. Its demands were of such a size and on such a long time scale that it must have known that no Government would accept them.
I know that there are critics of the financial arrangements made between the Government and the company for the ending of the contract. But contracts are contracts and Governments, like everybody else—indeed, perhaps especially Governments—are obliged to honour contracts that they or, with their knowledge, public authorities enter into.
Some seem to feel that the Government should have demanded the £20 million left with the company—an understandable desire to have the full pound of flesh. I cannot agree with that. If the Government had done that, I would not have supported them and nor would the hon. Member for Inverness or the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), because we three have a considerable interest in the company's continuing in business. I would not have approved of anything that endangered jobs at Falkirk, Fort William or Kinlochleven. I do not go along with Labour Members who feel that the full pound of flesh should have been extracted, regardless of the consequences at other plants.
I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not seek assurances from the company about the other plants. If he did so, I hope that he will tell me. I accept that we could not expect assurances up to the end of the century, but the Government could reasonably have asked for assurances in the shorter term. If they did not do that, they should do so now.
I pay tribute to the responsible attitude of the work force at Invergordon—an attitude which has been stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty. The men


are allowing alumina to leave Invergordon for Kinlochleven and Fort William, thus ensuring the continuation of those plants and the jobs there.
The Government have my full support and encouragement in the search for a single user or a consortium of users for the smelter. It is important that in the near future the Government should start negotiations, or complete them if they have been begun, about the availability and price of the site at Ivergordon. 1 assume that the plant is written off in British Aluminium's accounts at scrap value and the company should be prepared to sell it at that price.
Hon. Members have rightly stressed that we should be able to talk to anyone interested in a power contract. My right hon. Friend will have my support in coming to the House or going to the Government with the sort of power contract that may be needed for the plant to reopen.
As all hon. Members who have spoken today have said, the plant was set up to bring a new industrial future to Easter Ross. It is a tragedy that this has happened to it after only 10 years of operation. It is an equal tragedy that during those 10 years it made a profit in only one year and that the optimism that was shown in the original power contract—an optimism that was shared by all hon. Members—was so unfounded and hopelessly optimistic. While it is easy for the Opposition to blame the Government tonight, the blame is much wider and has a great connection with what has happened to power prices over the last 12 years. The House and Conservative Back Benchers will blame the Government if they do not show actively that they are seeking another company to reopen the plant. I am sure that they will do so, and they have my complete support in that search.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) has turned his mind, as have all other Conservative Members, to ways and means of keeping the smelter open. I am sure that that is the wish of the whole House, and that the Government alone accept the closure. To make their case, Conservative Members should start at the first thumbnail and make the calculations on the cost of the job. The Secretary of State gave his estimate of the cost of the energy contract as £15 million to £20 million a year. That is the outside limit. There are 1, 000 jobs directly involved in the smelter, 1, 500 jobs locally, 1, 000 mining jobs and 500 jobs in the power stations and other plants in Scotland—a total of 4, 000. That means that £5, 000 per job is saved per annum.
The figures quoted by the Secretary of State on the electricity contract were the costs involved in bringing down the total supply costs to make the smelter economic, but the capital costs of that have already been incurred. Where do we draw the ring? Geography draws the line around hydro and smelter in Norway. The Secretary of State mentioned Switzerland and France, but in neither of those countries does geography draw the boundary around hydro and smelter. In those countries, long-term contracts override the cost of electricity supplies to consumers. This pursuit of the doctrine of fuel prices takes no account of what is on the ground and of the matching time scales that have got Invergordon and our fuel policy into the mess that it is in today.
Under the contract, British Aluminium has the right to receive 200 MWs at operating cost until the year 2000. But at what cost? The Secretary of State could not understand my question on that. Presumably it is based on the cost of

generating it from Hunterston B, but on what basis of estimation? Will it be on the cost that was estimated at the time at which the contract was drawn up, at present-day costs, or on what? The realistic basis of an electricity supply contract must surely be at the marginal cost of supply of electricity, but the marginal cost to whom? The heavy capital costs that have been incurred have been incurred right down the line, not just at the smelter or at the power station, but at the pits, in the transport system, and so on. There must be a cost-benefit study to the community as a whole—not the sort of thing that the Government have been used to, but the sort of thing that they will have to get used to as the election approaches.
The Government's time scale of three years was obviously based on tiding them over until the next election. That period is far too short. Serious contracts for aluminium supply of the sort that any serious producer would want cannot be made over a three-year period. A period up to the year 2000 would have been good, but the Government could at least have tried a 10-year period. However and whenever the smelter is saved, the pressure for further industrial development in the Highlands must be maintained.
The question to which we should turn our attention is one that concerns me as representing the sole surviving jumbo project in Scotland—the Ravenscraig works. We are anxious to see higher quality of thought in dealing with the problems of industrial relations in Scotland, about which this Government have shown little understanding.
There are lessons to be learnt from the closure of the smelter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were perhaps, in the interests of the workers in Invergordon, a little shortsighted in not wishing to examine the origins of the smelter project. An account was given not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in a report to the Labour Party conference in 1967, but more fully in the book by Mr. Edmund Dell, the former Member for Birkenhead, who was a Minister in the 1960s and 1970s when the original contract was negotiated.
When Rio Tinto-Zinc put forward its proposal to the Government in 1966 for a smelter linked to an advance gas-cooled reactor, I was a Minister at the Ministry of Power and the proposal came to me. I thought that it was hazardous, to say the least, and a highly inefficient way in which to create jobs in development areas. First, there was the enormous delay in the construction, and, secondly, it was a capital-intensive project. Given the same money, the hydro-electric board could have created many more jobs. Thirdly, there was the enormous uncertainty of the metal crisis and, fourthly, the large margin of spare electricity generating capacity that was already emerging in 1967 and which has been a feature of the electricity supply industry since.
I attended the first meeting on the proposal, which was called by the Prime Minister of the day at No. 10. I voiced those misgivings, which were not popular. I put forward instead a suggestion for three downstream electrochemical plants which could have acted as the nucleus for a major petrochemical complex. Those three plants were needed at the time, gas had been discovered in the North Sea, we had oil in prospect and we needed to build up the downstream demand in petrochemicals, which even now Scotland has failed to develop. There was also the prospect of a gross excess ethylene capacity, which is causing


problems at Grangemouth at present. That approach was not popular with the Prime Minister, and the negotiations were transferred to my colleague, Mr. Edmund Dell, then to the Ministry of Technology, and later to the Ministry of Trade.
I do not need to go into the details of the negotiations, because they are fully spelt out in Edmund Dell's book. It is clear that the British Aluminium contract has proved disastrous—for the company, for the country and for the workers at Invergordon. I suspect that the reason why we have not had the same difficulties at Anglesey is that RTZ is better and more experienced at negotiating the contracts involved in highly capital-intensive industrial and mining projects.
During the late 1960s RTZ was developing the iron ore fields in Western Australia and entered into a contract with the Japanese Government to supply virtually the whole of Japan's iron ore requirement for 25 years, with, of course, periodic renegotiations to take account of changes in world prices and costs. It was a highly protective contract, and it is protecting the interests of RTZ against all the vagaries and uncertainties of world steel demand today. If that could be done for steel, it could certainly be done for aluminium, and I trust that it has been done in Anglesey. I hope that there will not be the problems in that area because there has been a solid commitment there.
As for the future, a good case has been made on both sides of the House, bearing in mind that the capital costs have been incurred. Whatever the original wisdom may have been, the costs having been incurred, the present wisdom is undoubtedly to keep the smelter going. For the future, I hope that not only Conservative but Labour Members will learn the wisdom of not running after the first industrialist who comes along with enormous capital-intensive projects and uses them as a basis for exploiting unemployed people in development areas who do not deserve to be exploited in that way. Let us have development areas, and let us have industries in Lanarkshire and Motherwell, as well as in Invergordon, which will provide security for the future, which are protected from world makets, and which are subject to properly negotiated long-term safeguards. That is what the Government have failed to understand.

Sir Hector Monro: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) who, in his concluding remarks, sowed seeds that many of us would accept.
We have heard a sad story today. One of the great companies of this country, British Aluminium—involved, as it is, with Tube Investments—has had to admit failure of its plant at Invergordon. Years ago, when I lived in Inverness, I used to go to Foyers in the 1930s to see the original British Aluminium plant there. It worked extremely well. It is sad to know that that plant is now shut, and that now the great plant at Invergordon is in the same position.
The Opposition's attack on the Government, in my view, is inexplicable. After all, the Labour Government of the late 1960s advised British Aluminium to go to Invergordon, and that Government negotiated the power contract. The failure of that contract is the reason for the failure of the plant at Invergordon. The then Secretary of

State for Scotland, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), who is not in the Chamber at present, answered questions in the House in the 1960s. I looked at some of them yesterday, and there is no doubt that at that time hon. Members on both sides questioned deeply the importance of the power contract.
In Scottish terms, Invergordon is about as far from my constituency as any place could be. Nevertheless, it is an area that I know particularly well, not only because I served there in the war, but because I have many family connections there. It is an area that many of us have long thought should be a centre of major industrial development. It is sad that it has not turned out as we had hoped.
From today's Front Bench statement, some parts of the story are somewhat more clear, and others are even less clear than they were before the debate started. One is reminded of the old Irish saying that the man who is not confused simply is not well informed. We are reaching the stage in this country where, unless everything in negotiations is written down and signed the day that it is discussed, it will be repudiated subsequently. The lack of trust between the Government and the leaders of industry is a sorry trend.
It was clear throughout the 1960s and 1970s that every effort was being made to bring industry to Easter Ross. It has all the natural advantages of a fine harbour at Invergordon, which should be the centre of an industrial complex. It provides the opportunity of bringing raw materials ashore easily, and its vast hinterland of flat ground could be developed for industrial use. At that time, Parliament—certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself, and others—actively supported all attempts to bring development to the area, as did the local authority. No one did more than the Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). It is sad today that many of his constituents criticise him personally, when no one could have done more to maintain the smelter in operation.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was not knighted—unlike the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is a sorry disgrace to the House most of the time.
Parliament, all parties, and the Highlands and Islands Development Board put great effort into promoting Invergordon. It is tragic that the smelter, the major cog in the whole operation, failed, not because of strikes or technical difficulties, but because of the power contract. That is what made it unviable. The contract itself was hopelessly optimistic when it was drawn up in the late 1960s. That is why British Aluminium has abandoned the smelter.
All of us are gravely concerned at the impact on the labour force which was given no notice by British Aluminium of the impending doom. However, I ask those workers to take heart. It is not a unique situation in the history of Scotland. In my constituency, in Upper Nithsdale, when the pits were worked out in the 1960s and had to be closed virtually overnight, an enormous number of men were made idle. It was the same story. Unemployment there jumped from about 10 per cent. to


25 per cent. However, they buckled to, and joined together constructively to overcome the disaster. With the help of the Government of the day, the local authorities, and particularly the borough of Sanquhar, dramatic changes took place. Factories were built and unemployment dropped to a lower level than during the pit closures. So those who are unemployed or who are likely to be unemployed in the near future in Invergordon should take heart, because the situation can change as dramatically to the right direction as it has changed to the wrong direction.
It is astonishing that British Aluminium did not go to its Member of Parliament and to the Secretary of State a year ago. That was the time to fly danger signals—not last October or November. That was the time to bring home to the Government the immediate consequences. I should be very disappointed if a firm in my constituency which was heading for disaster did not contact me at the earliest possible moment so that I might transmit its problems to the Secretary of State. One can therefore criticise British Aluminium for not approaching the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty a long time ago to tell him how dangerous the situation was becoming.
No Government or company can organise a rescue operation in a few weeks. As soon as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knew about the problem, he called Mr. Utiger to his office on 2 December to discuss the matter at the earliest opportunity, and four weeks before the announcement of the closure. It is almost impossible for any Government or Minister to resolve such a problem in that time.
Worse, despite the Government's extreme concern about the plant's probable closure, British Aluminium made it abundantly clear that it wished to abandon Invergordon at virtually any price. The company would not consider an interim three-year agreement while the issue was being reconsidered. If we had had a three-year breathing space, a satisfactory solution might have been reached. I believe that the company put a pistol to the Government's head and said "Bail us out of our problem at Invergordon, or we shall close our operations in Falkirk and, perhaps"—even worse—"at Fort William and Kinlochleven." That is no way for an industry in desperate need of assistance to approach a Government. As we have spent so much time highlighting the problems of the power contract, we have underestimated the Secretary of State's efforts to alleviate the immediate disaster at Invergordon.
Today, press comment implies that some companies are interested. However, unless the Secretary of State tells us that that is so, I shall discount such rumours. I wonder whether a new operator would not prefer to build his own coal-fired power station. I ask a lot of my right hon. Friend, but I hope that he will obtain a definite commitment from British Aluminium that it will not stand in the way of another company that wishes to take over the smelter and that it will leave—at an agreed valuation—all the plant at Invergordon. I have some experience of the aluminium industry and we must not be too optimistic. It would be unfair to the work force if we were. An upturn in the economy would help and would have a fairly sharp impact on consumer durables—on which the aluminium industry largely depends—such as double glazing and many other easily manufactured items involving aluminium extrusion and other uses of the metal.
I hope that the economy is over the hump. A pick-up in the economy would encourage a company that might take over the smelter to take that important step. Great

responsibility lies with the Government, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the local authority arid they will have the complete backing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy. I know that they will all work together in unison, constructively and with the substantial sum of £10 million behind them for promotion. Hon. Members seem to think that £10 million is all that is involved. However, if £10 million attracts a company, all the regional grants will come into play. The economic planning department of the Government and of the Department of Industry can give immense support to a company that decides to go to the Easter Ross area. Therefore, £10 million is purely a pruner to help attract industry. It is not a complete sum in itself because all the other grants under the Industry Act will come into play. Those grants could be substantial.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be wondering how else he can help the infrastructure of the area in the interim period by continuing the substantial development made on the A9 and how he can help with environmental schemes for towns such as Cromarty. Such developments could greatly help the construction industry. There is much that my right hon. Friend can and will do to reduce unemployment.
The recriminations that we have heard today get us nowhere. Good will will resolve the problem. However frustrated Opposition and Conservative Members may feel that, because of high unemployment, we are far more likely to achieve the required result if we act together constructively than if we niggle away, fight each other and blame each other for the past. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the disaster has been terrible for Invergordon, Cromarty Firth and for far further afield. If we are to succeed—as we must—we must have absolute faith in my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Industry, and in the local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, to do everything possible to alleviate that disaster. If we go further positively and constructively, we are far more likely to succeed.

Mr. Michael Martin: I do not share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro) that the workers should take heart because, despite redundancies and closures, there is the possibility of other jobs.
I represent a constituency that is 250 miles away from Invergordon. Over the years, there have been closures. I am old enough to remember Springburn when it was a thriving railway community, employing about 8, 000 workers. The closures have had a disastrous effect on the community. People got on well with one another and the crime rate was much lower than it is now. In addition, there was much less deprivation than there is today. People felt that it was a joy just to walk down the High Street in Springburn, but that is not so now.
If the smelter at Invergordon closes, it will not be a good omen for those in the area. I sympathise and identify with them. I know their worries. I have been unemployed and know what it is to leave a factory because of pay-offs and closure.
I shall devote some of the time at my disposal to the effect that the closure of Invergordon will have on the railways. When I heard about the proposed closure, I


thought that it was in another part of Scotland and that it would not directly affect me or my constituency, although I had every sympathy with the people of Invergordon. However, there is no doubt that every part of Scotland will suffer because of the closure.
British Rail tells me that there is a possibility that it will lose an annual income of £3 million because of the closure of Invergordon. British Rail derives an income of £420, 000 from bringing in raw materials. The loss of finished products which British Rail takes out will cost it £432, 000. British Rail was required to move three-quarters of a million tonnes of coal from the coalfields to the power stations. That movement represented £1·5 million.
The carriage of bulk alumina from the silos in Invergordon to Fort William will be lost to British Rail if the closure takes place. It will be taken directly to Fort William from abroad. That carriage represented an annual income to British Rail of £300, 000.
Another factor is that unemployment in Invergordon will mean the loss of passenger traffic in the area. People will not take Golden Rail holidays or other holidays to other parts of the country and British Rail will suffer. My constituents will suffer accordingly.
I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that these consequences must result in redundancies in British Rail. They will result also in redundancies in the private sector because the freight wagons and the passenger trains that are manufactured by private companies on orders given to them by British Rail will not be needed. Therefore, the effects will be catastrophic for the Highlands and the whole of the Scottish economy.
The fall in population in my constituency means that excellent schools and community facilities—buildings that could last easily for another 100 years or more—are lying empty. As the local authorities are suffering from Government cuts they are not able properly to maintain the buildings. At least one school in my constituency has been set fire to by vandals. I do not think that that fire or others would have taken place if the school had been fully occupied and properly cared for.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland has meaningful negotiations with the local authorities to compensate them for the revenue that they have allocated for housing and infrastructure. If they want to see what happens when there is high unemployment, the Secretary of State and his officials have only to come to Springburn to witness the dereliction that is caused when Governments fail to recognise the need to pump capital into projects that are not unprofitable but which need help at difficult times.

Mr. David Myles: I am pleased to follow the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). It was in contrast to some of the speeches that we have heard from Opposition Members.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman has not heard me yet.

Mr. Myles: I agree with a number of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
The intricacies of this issue have now been extremely deeply and well argued. I do not propose to rehearse them

in parrot fashion or to repeat all the arguments that have been advanced. Blame has been apportioned and the Opposition have pointed at the Government Benches. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends for not sending that blame back when they could have done so. It is only with hindsight that we would now apportion blame to the Government of 1968, who encouraged the project to go ahead. [Interruption.] There is no need for the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to gabble on from a sedentary position. I shall give way if he wishes to intervene.

Mr. Canavan: But for the Labour Government the smelter would never have existed.

Mr. Myles: That may be so, but they used other people's money, created by the skills of other people.

Mr. Canavan: The Tories are using public money to close it down.

Mr. Myles: I know that an enormous amount of taxpayers' money has gone into this enterprise. I say immediately that I shall back the Government in keeping the smelter going if it is at all possible—but with an expert operator, not with a bunch of amateurs who do not know what they are doing. British Aluminium made commercial mistakes all the time. It is extraordinary for Labour Members to say that the Government should have obtained assurances that it would, with any shadow of doubt, carry on the other enterprise, if it received this subsidy. There is no benefit whatever in such assurances from a company on the slippery slope to bankruptcy.
Without seeking vague assurances amounting in reality to nothing, the Government had to make a judgment on whether to give this long-term assistance. Let us quantify the amount involved—£17, 000 per job at today's prices until the end of the century. If the Government gave Banffshire half that sum per job, we should certainly find the jobs.
I have talked enough about blame and raking over the ashes. Let us hope that the phoenix will rise from those ashes. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, let us all learn some of the lessons that can be learnt from this experience.
There is no doubt that a democracy such as ours—to which, thank God, we owe our freedom—has deficiencies. There is the one-man, one-vote pressure on any Government to prove their virility, to prove that they can attract jobs better than anyone else and to pour taxpayers' money into jobs in an amateurish way. Such action is continually being pressed on all Governments.
We have an extremely difficult argument to put in this debate. The Opposition say that they will solve all the problems by taking over the factory, nationalising it and running the whole thing centrally, but what kind of debacle has there been in countries that have followed that path? We have seen the tragedy of that in Poland. Despite the terrible problems being faced by the workers in Invergordon, they are nothing compared with the problems of the workers in Poland, who have been oppressed by the kind of society that the hon. Gentleman would like to promote.

Mr. Canavan: Just for the record, hon. Members should know that I am appearing on a public platform in Glasgow on Sunday in support of the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland.

Mr. Myles: I am very pleased to hear at this late hour that the hon. Gentleman has been converted and is seeing the weaknesses, the tragedy, the dangers and the evils of that centrally controlled society, because that is what they are advocating. We are saying that a free company can go to Invergordon.
We must be aware of the facts. I must be slightly critical of the Government, in that because of the democratic pressure to which I have referred they have not encouraged the employment that could be found in very small businesses. There are a number of one-man businesses, that would take on an employee—I am sure that there are more than 1 million of them—if it were not for the disincentives, the centralised regulations, the controls, the amount of their own money that they have to pay out, whether they make a profit or not, immediately they start employing someone, unlike the big companies, which receive that scarce money, the small businesses' money. It is time that we turned back the clock and started to encourage the real wealth-producers in this country instead of using political expediency to gain votes.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall try to be very brief indeed because the Secretary of State, among others, admonished me for so many sedentary interruptions.
Let me just turn to some of the crucial points. In commercial dealings. I would love to negotiate with such a ham-handed lot. They go to a company and at the end of the day they say "We will write off £21 million but do not bother to tell us the written-down value of this plant." Having written off a loan of £21 million, this Government do not say to the company "We will do a deal with you so that we can take over in the future, if someone else comes along, at X value lower than the value in your books." That never occurs to them, but it is a key issue in terms of getting someone else in: who owns the company's assets and what their value is.
In relation to the power contract, the Secretary of State gave a lot of figures and I hope that I have them right. In 1980 to 1982 the proposition was, if we had gone the way we were negotiating, about 1·5 pence per unit, but this is still greatly in excess of the notional figure for Anglesey. Therefore, anyone coming in will want to get a power contract that relates to the Anglesey long-term price. The Secretary of State has to make very clear the way in which that will be spread. The deficiency in the contract here relates to having to make it quite clear how it is being subvented. The CEGB in England and Wales can hide the price over a large number of consumers.
There is no way, with Dungeness B being delayed for 11 to 14 years, that Dungeness B power notionally can be cheaper to the CEGB than Hunterston B. If there is, let us be told. We all want to know.
I am in some difficulty here because I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General is looking into this. I hope that no one is going to say that these contracts now, after all this, are a matter of great secrecy and that the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot take a look at them.
The other thing that is mysterious is that we have heard a statement that we should now say we want a smelter in Invergordon related to a coal price. What a joke! The coal industry is a vital aspect. The asset is there. I wish we could stop being tied up with accountants. I say that with respect to some hon. Members who are accountants. If we

had had discounted cash flow sums in the eighteenth century and the nineteenth century, we should have built nothing. The people then did not do the calculations.
Another crucial fact is that the company was tied up because of its annual balance sheet. It had to make its annual balance sheet look good, and the Government caved in to that.
In some ways I start by being sympathetic to the company and the Government. In 1980 the company came to the Government about a power contract. I know some of the officials in the Scottish Office. I cannot believe that people of their competence did not go through that company wholeheartedly and in some detail and get to know it. The company was disputing in February 1980 the power charges and what the long work position would be. In October 1981 the company went to the Department of Industry. I cannot believe that no Scottish Office official was there and that a full report was not given to the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary must answer that point.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who happily left the Chamber touching his forelock, perhaps hoping to secure a lordship, argues that one should approach the Government when one has problems. In my constituency today Monotype International, a leading company in advanced technology, announced that it would close in a few months' time. I shall be going to see the Government, because it is a high technology company, and we are not losing those jobs in Dunfermline if I can help it. The company is an asset that we want there.
The closing of the smelter will have a knock-on effect in the coal and electricity supply industries. The Secretary of State mentioned the Kincardine power station, which has been refurbished on the basis of an expected demand for electricity.
The crucial factor in the whole matter is whether we are telling the people of Scotland that we have abandoned regional policies. The message is that the only industries that we can get are flexible, small industries that can be attracted because a private entrepreneur wants to come. In a modern House of Commons we have no responsibility to tell that to the people of Scotland, particularly to the people of Ross and Cromarty.
I shall not go over the history of the smelter contract, but there are many matters that we could examine. The smelter is where it is because of balance of payments considerations and the fact that it represents modern and forward-looking industry. One can be critical of the company, but the responsibility for closure ultimately falls on the Government. Modern Governments are elected to take that responsibility, not to be the plaything of economic forces. Otherwise, we get back to blaming every recession on sunspots. We are not the plaything of economic forces. We must intervene. I admit that there are difficulties in that.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: That is the economics of King Canute.

Mr. Douglas: King Canute's problem was timing. He got his timing wrong. The Government have obviously got their timing wrong, because it was related to the company's annual balance sheet. Companies behave in that way because they must protect the shareholders. Governments should not behave in that way, because they have to protect the citizens and workers. That is why we


are elected—not to be the playthings of companies but to oppose them and if necessary to take them over. We should not at the end of the day subvent them and then not be able to create a situation in which we can bring in someone else, in the public or private sector, at a price and under conditions acceptable to us, if not to the company itself.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I find it extremely disappointing that a man of the obvious ability of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) should speak on a subject such as that before the House without offering one constructive idea. He indulged in a series of recriminations. It is an insult to those whose jobs have been lost and who are suffering at present in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) that so many Opposition speeches have not offered constructive answers but have sought only to hit the Government.
In view of the time, I wish only to ask two questions of my hon. Friend who will be answering the debate. We must accept that British Aluminium is no longer at Invergordon. As the Government's amendment suggests, hon. Members on this side of the House seek to give support to finding someone else to take over the plant. When I look at the economics of the price of energy to the plant, I wonder whether the Government have considered in sufficient depth its energy efficiency. I am a member of the Energy Select Committee, and when we looked at energy prices to industry we found that many energy-intensive industries, given the spending of a little capital, could become much more energy-efficient and, therefore, would need to use less energy.
When a company comes forward and the Government are discussing with it the possible takeover of the plant, they should insist that the company looks at an investment of £10 million to £20 million to try to reduce electricity consumption. A way out of the problems in all energy-intensive industries, given the price of energy, is to use less rather than to try to subsidise our way out of the high prices.
My second point is more general and affects the whole of Scotland. My hon. Friend knows my views on Torness. I am not going to refer to them tonight, nor am I going to suggest, because it is now impractical, that Torness should be stopped. But my hon. Friend is aware that the South of Scotland Electricity Board has in its area an over-capacity which, in terms of any other business, would be not only staggering but unbusinesslike and uncommercial.
A public utility which is producing almost double the amount of a product which anybody is going to buy, with an over-capacity of some 70 per cent., is not only inefficient but also more costly than it should he. If a business was producing twice as many goods as there were customers to buy, the overheads would inevitably put up the price of the goods which were being sold. In the discussions which he inevitably will have with the SSEB, I hope that my hon. Friend will talk to them about the over-capacity which was encouraged by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), when he was Secretary of State for Energy, and which is now hitting industry and domestic consumers.
If the Government were to take these two constructive approaches—first, to look for greater energy efficiency at Invergordon and, secondly, to look for a more efficient way of producing energy than the SSEB has been capable of over the last two years—we might at least be able in the future to give hope to companies which might either take over Invergordon or come into Scotland in energy-intensive industries.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is here, because, as a Member for Ayrshire, I want to warn people not to be fooled by his disarming manner. I know him only too well. When he talks of this closure as a profound disaster and when we hear hon. Members opposite bemoaning it, it is ridiculous. One would think, from what they say, that it had been caused by someone from outer space, whereas all of us know, as I am sure everyone outside the Chamber knows, that it is a direct result of Government policy. It is a direct result of the high energy costs that the Government have deliberately forced up. It is a cruel irony that it is the Minister of State, Department of Energy whose constituency is suffering from that policy. It is a direct result of unrestricted imports of aluminium, which I will come to in a moment, and of the economic slump that has been engineered by the Government.
It is no use all the Conservative Back and Front Benchers putting up a smokescreen and saying that the closure is the fault of the 1968 Government and that power contract. It is a deliberate smokescreen to take away the blame from where it should be—with the Conservative Government and their policies.
The real reason why the smelter is closing is that the proposal that seemed to be agreed between the Scottish Office and British Aluminium was vetoed. The cost to keep the smelter open was not £16 million per annum but £16 million less the costs that are now being paid, which are perhaps over £8 million. It was for that amount of less than £8 million per annum that the smelter had to close yet, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the real cost of closing the smelter has not been assessed. It was a false economy to close it. One can see that when considering the cost of unemployment benefit and the loss of revenue from the 1, 500 people who worked in the area, but who will be unemployed? The cost could be over £4, 000 per person, which is a modest estimate. In total, the bill would be about £6 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has already said that the closure will cost British Rail £3 million per annum. The cost to the Government of subsidising the smelter would have been about £9 million. Those are the figures before one considers the possible costs to the National Coal Board for coal, to the South of Scotland Electricity Board, to local government and the £10 million that the Scottish Office is contributing in its attempt to find alternative jobs. It is a false economy. The Government's decision is ridiculous for that reason.
It is frustrating, annoying and appalling to come to Westminster and hear the Prime Minister on Tuesdays and Thursdays preaching and shouting shrilly that everything is okay, that the recession has bottomed out and that we are on the way up, and then to return to our constituencies on Fridays to find that yet another closure is announced.


The Invergordon smelter has closed, but, as the Minister knows, there has also been a closure at Laporte in my constituency. Closure after closure is being announced.
It is galling that the Government knew about the Invergordon closure as far back as at least 6 October, yet at Scottish Question Time on 9 December the Secretary of State and his Ministers said that everything was wonderful and rosy, and that things were on the up and up in Scotland. At the same time they knew secretly that the closure was imminent.
Why did British Aluminium put a pistol at the heads of the Government? A threat was made to the jobs in Falkirk, Kinlochleven, and elsewhere. Why was the end of the financial year set as a limit? Why was that arbitrarily chosen as a date? There is no valid reason why the end of the financial year should be chosen. That was a peculiar thing to do, as if the Government were forced into their decision and did not have the guts to stand up to British Aluminium.
I should also like to ask about imports. I drew the Government's attention to the fact that for the three months to the end of November 1981 £61 million worth of worked aluminium and aluminium alloy was imported. That is £240 million worth per year. For those three months some £33½ million of that was in plate, sheet and strip aluminium and £11½ million of that was from East Germany. Some £45 million worth is imported from East Germany per annum. Why are the Government accepting such an import from East Germany? Why does the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) accept such imports from East Germany while the smelter in his constituency is being allowed to close? We have not had an answer to that question. I hope that the Minister will give an answer today.
As yet no one has called for an inquiry into the closure, but I should like such an inquiry. The first priority must be to find some way to ensure that the smelter continues. There are, however, a number of disquieting aspects—the lack of consultation with the work force and the fact that a number of people knew in advance about the closure and that it was kept secret from those who mattered most—the people working in the smelter. Those working in the smelter have been cheated of their earnings-related benefit by the timing of the closure. There is also the real cost of the option put to the Government and rejected by them. All these matters, and many more, need to be investigated. Why did the company and the Government put the interests of the Stock Exchange before the interests of those working in the smelter? I hope that there will be an inquiry, possibly by the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs or some kind of public inquiry. Many people have told me that something about the closure smells. I share that view.
Hon. Members have been discussing the supply of power. I have the horrible prospect of a nuclear power station in my constituency. It will be completely unnecessary because of the manner in which power demand in Scotland is developing. The costing of nuclear power does not take account of the full cost of its production. It does not take account of the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. In talking about the decommissioning of nuclear power stations that have progressed beyond their useful life, I can only say that if this Government ever had a useful life, they have now gone beyond it and should be decommissioned immediately.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall not take the paths and byways followed by the hon. Membor for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). His speech shows that he is probably well read but has little experience of negotiating anything.
What we face is a matter of regional policy. We tend to treat individual cases in isolation. Naturally, all hon. Members feel depressed. This matter cannot be other than depressing. Regional policy pursued since the war presents the House today with the cumulative effect of many well-intentioned acts. Some were generated by the balance of payments problems at the time. It is easy with hindsight to pick flaws in the 1968 contract. Hon. Members, however, were not making the decisions within the constraints and parameters faced at that time.
Hon. Members must not overlook the human tragedy for those facing redundancy. Nevertheless, we must not allow our emotions to cloud our objective judgments and out objective thinking. We must face the challenge of change and find the best possible viable answers. What is interesting about the 1968 contract is the manner in which the Government of the day committed the country and future Governments to a contract in which the electricity generating board had its position underwritten. There was no pressure on the board to achieve the optimistic targets for the price of electricity that it claimed would come to pass. None of the normal commercial pressures were brought to bear on the management of the generating board to see that it got near these figures.
There are three reasons for the closure of Invergordon. The first is the low price of aluminium world-wide. The second is the lack of United Kingdom demand for the products. The third—and the one we cannot run away from—is the power contract that was negotiated in 1968.
When there is a substantial fall in demand for products of any kind on a world-wide market, producers cut prices to keep their plant and factories operating. This means that all the other producers in the same field find pressures building up on them. If they wish to maintain their share of the diminishing market, they also cut their prices.
Can the Minister confirm that the loss at Invergordon was running at about £500 per week? If that is so, however we juggle with the price of electricity, it does not overcome that loss, as I calculate it. Therefore, there is more than just the price of electricity behind the problems at Invergordon.
What is important is the price that the end product will fetch on the market. Despite all the delightful theories, in the end it is customers who keep jobs, not Governments or the price of electricity. If we cannot persuade the customers to pay the viable price, and if there is not a market, jobs cannot be kept. If other producers are cutting prices and we wish to keep our share of the market, we have to cut our prices. It means that many firms with a proud reputation are forced into a position of extreme financial difficulty; in some cases they face bankruptcy.
I remind the theorists on the Labour Benches that assurances entered into, or documents signed in these circumstances, are not worth the paper on which they are written. When a company goes into insolvency it does not protect jobs and it does not produce anything.
Is there a demand for aluminium in the United Kingdom at present? Will there be a demand in the future? If so, how far into the future will that be? Can we produce the goods


from the smelter at a price that the customers will pay? What price will the future operators of the smelter be prepared to pay for electricity?
When we have the answers to those questions and know whether electricity can be produced at the right price, and when we can determine which source of energy the boards will use—hydro, coal or whatever it is—we shall know whether there is ever likely to be an operational smelter at Invergordon. I pray that the answers will come out right, but we must not allow our judgment to be influenced by our sad feelings for the people of Invergordon.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: During the Christmas Recess I had the pleasure of visiting the Invergordon area. I do not know whether "pleasure" is the appropriate word. It was a very sad community and, justifiably, a very angry community. Nevertheless my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and I received a warm reception, which is more than can be said of the Minister, who arrived on the same day and was pelted with snowballs. He should not have been surprised, because the shabby treatment meted out to the work force by the Government and by the company is an absolute disgrace.
There was virtually no consultation with the work force. There was less than 48 hours' notice of closure. The timing was deliberately chosen to cheat the work force out of the earnings-related supplement. The company walked off with over £20 million profit out of the closure. It is probably the first time in the industrial history of Scotland that any Secretary of State has handed out taxpayers' money to a private company in order to close it down.
I am sure that hon. Members on each side of the House have seen closures in their own constituencies and elsewhere, but I have never seen anything like this closure in my life, and I hope never to see a repetition of it. The whole affair stinks. It is a sad story of deceit, duplicity and downright dishonesty, but perhaps we should not be too surprised when we look at one of the main characters in the story, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher).
Everything that the Under-Secretary of State has touched in industry, in education, or anywhere else, has ended up an absolute disaster—Callandar Park, Hampden Park, Linwood, Corpach, and now Invergordon, the biggest economic disaster to face the Highlands, with repercussions throughout the whole of the Scottish economy. We are not concerned simply with the 900 jobs immediately at stake. There are more than double that number of jobs involved in that area of Scotland, and hundreds—indeed, thousands—more jobs elsewhere in Scotland. Jobs in the mining industry, the railways, the road haulage industry and the electricity generation industry are all at risk. Electricity consumers elsewhere in Scotland will be left carrying part of the bill, despite what was said by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State's speech was largely concerned with part events from 1968 to 1981. That may be interesting, but it is water under the bridge, and some of it very murky water at that. We should now be looking ahead constructively to see how we can get the smelter reopened. We must ask ourselves what is still there to use to achieve that objective.
There are three things available—the plant itself, the work force, and a market. There is a need for aluminium, despite what the Government say, and despite the depression in the market, which has been made worse by the Government's economic policies. It is up to the Government, who have made things worse instead of better, to effect some stimulus in the market for aluminium, or for anything else. Nobody can tell me that people do not need the aluminium produced by the smelter.
The Secretary of State said barely a word about the work force, which is skilled and responsible and has an excellent record in industrial relations. That record was so good that perhaps the BACO and the Government thought that they had on their hands a docile work force which, when the closure was announced, would go along, cap in hand, touch the forelock and gratefully accept the redundancy money before going home to cry.
The workers did not do that. To the surprise of many people, at a mass meeting the day after my visit, the workers took what may turn out to be a historic decision—the occupation of the plant. That is an example of responsible trade unionism at the highest level. At this minute many of them are working, keeping the plant in working condition for the reopening that they hope will come.
The BACO have said that it would cost a company well over £100 million to purchase or to build such a plant from scratch. The BACO has already walked away with enough public money. If ever there was a case for public ownership without a penny of further compensation, this is one. That is backed up by Grampian region council and Ross and Cromarty district council. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) seemed to agree to that as well. I hope that he will vote with us tonight and perhaps persuade some of his hon. Friends to do the same.
Often when people cry out for public ownership it is said that another lame duck may be involved. This is not another lame duck and it can be turned into a viable enterprise. Two things are required—a power contract and an operator. There does not seem to be any shortage of power in Scotland. In fact, there is over-capacity. If a subsidy package were put forward by the Government it would surely not be beyond the bounds of possibility to have a suitable power contract to reopen the smelter.
An operator is needed, and it is clear that the British Aluminium Company is not interested. It has opted out, and it is clear from some of the discussions that Labour Members including myself have had with the company that there is virtually no likelihood of the British Aluminium Company restarting its operations there.
Reference has been made to a few nibbles here and there by operators who might be interested in the plant. If the private sector is not interested, it is up to the Government to ensure that some Government agency such as the Scottish Development Agency or the Highlands and Islands Development Board steps in to operate the smelter on its own or in partnership with some other body. If the Government do that, they should not repeat the mistake of handing out money to a private operator without public control. The best way to ensure public control is by public ownership, either in whole or in part. If that means the SDA or the HIDB taking equity in a new venture, it would be a better deal than that which emerged before. Only by Government action and intervention will the smelter be saved and reopened.
I repeat what I said at the mass public meeting at Alness. A decade ago an intransigent, Right-wing, doctrinaire Tory Government were hell-bent on pursuing an economic and industrial strategy based on non-intervention, whatever the cost in economic and human terms. The historic decision by the workers of Clydeside helped to bring about a significant change in that Government's industrial strategy. Eventually, because the Government intervened and changed their minds too late, the workers helped to bring about the downfall of the Government.
What the workers of Clydeside were able to do a decade ago the workers of Cromarty Firth can do in 1982. I warn the Government to remember the mistake made by the former Tory Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He changed his mind too late. The Government had better act now and quickly, otherwise they, too, will be out on their necks and many of them, including the Minister of State, Department of Energy, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), will be lucky if they ever return to the House.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The debate has been interesting. Other events in the House today have also been interesting. I say that because of the importance of this debate. I hope that other events will not overshadow in the press the importance of these matters to the people of Easter Ross and the rest of Scotland. We are discussing lifelines for the men and women who are to lose their jobs as a result of the company's decision and the Government's activities.
As so often happens in such debates right at the end we receive some information that could give hope for the future. I say what I am about to say at the beginning of my remarks so that the Minister has time to obtain information from his officials. I understand that the Highlands and Islands Development Board today held a press conference at which it was said that an American company is interested in taking over the factory. That announcement has been made on television and in the media in Scotland tonight. I hope that I have given the Minister and his officials sufficient time to respond to those comments when he replies.
Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the work force. Before I discuss Falkirk I add my tribute to the work force at Invergordon. Some of them will make the round trip of nearly 1, 200 miles to come to the House to lobby Members of Parliament in the firm belief that the House of Commons will do something positive to support them in their hour of need. I say that deliberately, because if we fail we and, particularly, the Government will be responsible for spreading disillusion and despair in the area surrounding Easter Ross.
Many hon. Members commented that the work force is reasonable. A reasonable work force has been met by a highly unreasonable company and a very unsympathetic Government. I doubt whether there has been an example of worse industrial relations.
Constant reference has significantly been made to the British Aluminium plant in Falkirk. I shall say nothing in the House that I have not already said to the company. The company has a disgraceful industrial relations record. During the 11 years that I have been a Member of Parliament for the Falkirk area, I have on many occasions sharply conflicted with the company because of its conduct

of industrial relations. I am rather shattered that the Government obtained no assurances from the company about the future of the Falkirk operation. There is nothing to give encouragement for the future because the Government did not even obtain assurances, despite the massive amounts of public money given to the company.
Let me put it on record that the four trade unions at the Falkirk plant have all accepted a nil wage award for the whole of next year. Do not let anyone tell me that that work force is not co-operating in seeking to preserve the company, and do not let anyone from the Government or the company tell me that the entire future of the Falkirk plant is in the hands of the work force. It has made its contribution. It has agreed not to take any wage increases this year. If the company fails it will be through monumental mismanagement and incompetence.
Because of the deal set up for the company by the Government, it has been transformed from a net seller of primary aluminium to a net purchaser of it. That has put it in a very favourable position. That aspect has almost gone unnoticed. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), I should say that it is in primary aluminium that the market is low.
I found it astonishing that the Secretary of State should tell us that his first meeting with the company was in December, because when I and colleagues met the company on Wednesday it told us that it had gone to the Department of Industry on 6 October. At that time, the Department asked permission to call in the Scottish Office and the Treasury. The company assured us that it had told the Department that it favoured the Scottish Office and the Treasury being called in. Yet the Secretary of State said that his first meeting with the company was in early December—at the most, four weeks before the closure was announced. That is rather strange.
If the problem's urgency was appreciated, it was incumbent on the Secretary of State to meet the company in October, or certainly in early November. It appears that that did not happen, and I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Department of Industry called in the Scottish Office and the Treasury in early October or whether that was not done until the beginning of December. It is important for us to know that.
The Secretary of State gives us figures for the cost of preserving jobs at Invergordon and talks in terms of 16 million per annum until the year 2000, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) pointed out, £8 million is already being paid and we are talking about another £8 million of new money.
The Secretary of State breaks the cost down to £ 17, 000 per job per annum until 2000. He fails to appreciate that the £17, 000 relates only to the 900 jobs at the Invergordon smelter. On his own figures there will be a job loss of at least 1, 500 in that area and we should add to that the job loss in the mining industry—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) pointed out that 750, 000 tons of coal from the Scottish coalfield is involved—road haulage and railways. Some jobs have already been lost in the constituency of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) and the Invergordon smelter was the main customer of the BSC tar distillation plant in my constituency. The corporation has already said that it will close that plant.
If all those job losses are included in the figure, the £17, 000 per job is reduced to about £3, 500—much less than the cost of keeping someone unemployed. It is the


economics of the madhouse for the Secretary of State to resile from the possibility of preserving the smelter because it would cost £17, 000 per job involved. I accept that the figures break down to £17, 000 per job at the smelter, but if we add all the job losses to which I have referred the sum involved is reduced to £3, 500 per job, which is about £2, 000 less than it costs to keep a man unemployed. I do not believe that the Government have thought the thing through
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said, the work force reacted in a way which the Government did not expect. They expected workers to queue for redundancy, cry in their beer and forget about it. As the Under-Secretary knows to his bitter cost, Ministers have had a hard kick in the pants and that is one reason why we are working so hard to save the plant. The Government have been made to understand that the work force will not accept the closure.
The Secretary of State tells us that he had to agree to the deal because otherwise the whole company would have been in danger. We have still not been told why the Government rejected British Aluminium's package of proposals, which included a profit-sharing clause. The company had grounds to believe up to 17 December that the package would be accepted. It was only on 18 December, when the Secretary of State had lost yet another Cabinet battle, that the company was "shocked" to be told that the package was not accepted.
The Secretary of State said that if he had not agreed to the deal the other 2, 700 British Aluminium jobs in Scotland would have been put at risk. I took careful note of his words when he said that it was clear that if the Government had not agreed to the arrangement and even one job had been lost at Falkirk I would have been on the right hon. Gentleman's neck.
It is equally clear that if the Secretary of State had agreed to the deal there would not have been one job lost at Invergordon, Falkirk, in the mines, on the railway or in road haulage, in engineering, in the sawmill to which one of his hon. Friends referred, or the BSC tar distillation plant at Falkirk. There are two ways of looking at the Secretary of State's argument. As a result of the Government's incompetence, we are left with the worst of all possible worlds—the closure of Invergordon and uncertainly about the other 2, 700 jobs. No Minister has given us any assurance about the security of those jobs in British Aluminium in Scotland. All the talk about a deal being set up to preserve the 2, 700 jobs is pure eyewash. There will be job losses in British Aluminium in Scotland and in my constituency at Falkirk.
I come now to the search for a new operator. At present, we have to live with the fact, rightly or wrongly, and whether we like it or not, that British Aluminium still owns the plant. When I spoke to the chairman and his fellow directors, I found it surprising that no one had told them the names of the two nibblers—as the Secretary of State describes them. No one has asked the company for its assistance in finding a new tenant for the factory. The company says that it is willing to help the Government in securing a new tenant but there has been no contact between the Government and the company regarding assistance. I recognise the expertise of Gordon Drummond—who used to be the manager at British Aluminium at Invergordon—in the aluminium world, but

the company itself has world-wide contacts and it may be able to give assistance in finding a new tenant. I go on record, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, in saying that British Aluminium is under an obligation to make it as easy as possible for a new company to operate the smelter.
The Highlands regional council, in conjuncion with Ross and Cromarty distict council, has written to every Scottish Member of Parliament about the position. The Highlands regional council, which is hardly Left-wing dominated, has passed a vote of no confidence in the Government over their handling of the issue. Both those authorities will have their industrial promotion powers restricted under the Local Government and Planning Bill. Far from the Highlands regional council and Ross and Cromarty district council being able to expand industrial promotion, their powers are to be restricted under that Bill.
The Secretary of State tells us that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is engaged in a study of the aluminium industry in relation to the Highlands. We can paper the walls of every house in Ross and Cromarty with studies about the Highlands. We do not need any more. We need action to save the smelter—to reopen it, to get the men back to work and to bring hope back to the area.
As some of my hon. friends have pointed out, this is not the only failure in the Ross and Cromarty area. There is now a catalogue of failures as a result of the Government's decision to abandon the gas-gathering system, right through to the Invergordon smelter. If the Government had been serious in their intention to do something for the area, the Cabinet would immediately have taken back its decision to abandon the gas-gathering system and would have decided in favour of financing it.
Will the Minister say whether the sum of £10 million that is supposed to be available over three years can be made available in one tranche in order to help any new tenant to operate the Invergordon smelter? That would be a test of the Government's sincerity.
I have listened with interest to the speeches today, particularly those of Conservative Members such as the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and Banff (Mr. Myles). I understand that there is great competition in the north-east of Scotland between two hon. Members for the new parliamentary constituency which will be formed there as a result of the decision of the Boundary Commission. If I were asked to make the choice, I should have no difficulty, because the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East should point him towards our Lobby this evening.
It is not enough for Conservative Members to mouth the platitudes that they have mouthed in this debate and give sympathy to the work force whom they met in the Lobby this morning. That is not enough. They have to back it up with firm and positive action in the Lobby tonight. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be voting tonight in favour of the work force, and those who find themselves in the other Lobby will be voting to shatter the dream that was created 10 years ago, turning it into a nightmare for the people in Easter Ross and the whole Scottish economy. I have no hesitation in inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby and vote in favour of our motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The only thing that may command


agreement across the Floor of the House tonight is that every speaker in the debate, and, I am sure, every Member of the House. deeply regrets the closure at Invergordon. It is not simply another industrial closure. After all, all closures are serious. Its impact is far more serious in a remote part of the Highlands than it would be in the industrial belt of Scotland, the Midlands of England, or anywhere else. It is particularly serious because the operation was backed so firmly and enthusiastically by the Government of the day, subsequent Governments and hon. Members of all parties. It is a bitter disappointment to all of us who believe in a strong regional policy and in trying to develop the natural resources of all parts of the United Kingdom to find ourselves faced with this sad problem.
That may be the only point of agreement across the Floor, although I hope not, but it may help us to understand one thing: there is no problem, no matter how much good will is involved, that can be resolved, and no industrial regeneration. no matter how keen successive Governments may be, that can be achieved by throwing money at it. In the past decade, Invergordon has received £113 million of taxpayers' money to reduce the cost of electricity to the smelter. It has received the usual development grants, allowances and loans to set it up and keep it going. Despite that, Invergordon has gone out of business as an aluminium smelter. It should be a sobering thought to all of us to realise that money is not the answer to industrial problems at Invergordon, Linwood, or any other part of the United Kingdom. It does not matter which Government writes the cheques—the problem is not resolved.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and his hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) complained bitterly that the Government acted to save the jobs of their constituents at the British Aluminium rolling mill in Falkirk. That is the only construction that can be put on their speeches tonight. They made the silly point that there was no guarantee of jobs. The Labour Party was unable to give a guarantee about the jobs at Invergordon or anywhere else. It is impossible for any Government to say that they are guaranteeing jobs in a commercial organisation. I should have thought that the Labour Government's experience of unemployment would have taught them that lesson, if nothing else.
We have not, with the benefit of hindsight, criticised the 1968 contract—that would be all too easy—but we should remind ourselves that one thing that has altered tremendously since the power contract was signed in 1968 is that the world price of energy has exploded far more violently than anyone might have thought at the time. That has had an impact on energy costs in every industry, not least in an industry as energy-intensive as aluminium smelting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) was right to quote from the joint statement by the chairman of British Aluminium and myself following our meeting in London on 7 January. I hope that Opposition Members will pay some attention to the simple fact that that statement proves beyond doubt—a point raised by almost every Opposition Member who spoke—that the Government made every effort to keel) the smelter in operation, although admittedly at a cost of £16 million a year in the short term.
We did that on the basis that if agreement could have been reached the smelter would have survived for another

three years or more, after which the aluminium market can be expected to be in a stronger state than at present. The purpose of the joint statement was to clarify the position, because some confusing comments had been made. Theme is no confusion between the company and the Government in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) asked about the energy efficiency of the Invergordon smelter. British Aluminium agreed that micro-electronic controls were required at Invergordon, and the first batch was on the point of installation when the decision was made to close the plant. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the over-capacity of electricity in Scotland. That is a matter that I shall be discussing with the South of Scotland Electricity Board next week.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) asked whether the power price offered to British Aluminium was in line with the prices at Anglesey and Lynemouth. The price that British Aluminium said was the highest price consistent with enabling the smelter to continue was well below the price being charged to the company on 1981. That was the forward price that we discussed with it. Therefore, it was well below half that being charged to other industrial consumers in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that it would have been necessary for the taxpayer to pay at least £16 million a year until the year 2000. That was the content of the discussion that took place with British Aluminium on the forward price. Therefore, the comparison with other smelters is not relevant. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] It is not relevant, because British Aluminium's Fort William smelter gets its power at 0–2 per unit, which is less than 10 per cent. of the price paid by industry in Scotland. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board could not be expected to match that price.
What matters—this was my initial point—is the price and terms acceptable to British Aluminium to keep the smelter in operation. The Government and the company disagreed, not so much on the price, but on the period over which that price would have to be directly subsidised by the taxpayer. The difference between three years and 18 years was, in the Government's view, too long to give a blank cheque to any company.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question that I put to him and earlier to the Secretary of State. The issue of Fort William is irrelevant, but it is relevant that Invergordon, Anglesey and Lynemouth were all established at the same time. Was a power price offered to British Aluminium during these negotiations that was similar and fair compared with the prices at present charged in Anglesey and Lynemouth?

Mr. Fletcher: The Government and the company understood that a future price would have to he competitive with other aluminium smelters. That applies not only to British Aluminium but to any company that takes over the site. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's point is not relevant to the discussion. We are discussing whether the price would be internationally competitive. The right hon. Gentleman does not need me or British Aluminium to tell him that the company could not operate at Invergordon unless the price was internationally competitive. However, we are discussing not the price at Anglesey and Lynemouth but that at Invergordon.

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I shall not give way, because there is nothing to be gained from pressing the point.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that the smelter had not suffered from an absence of support from Governments, both past and present. He regretted the apparent misunderstanding between the Government and British Aluminium. I hope that my repetition of the joint statement by the chairman and myself at the beginning of the month will clarify that. If not, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will re-read the joint statement, because it is clear. There is nothing technical or complex about it. It is written in plain English and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that the closure called regional policy generally into question, and particularly as it affects remote parts of the United Kingdom, such as the Highlands. Some people are trying to be wise after the event and after the disappointments that have occurred not only in the Highlands but in other parts of Scotland. I refer mainly to writers living comfortably in the South-East, who give us the benefit of their advice.
The smelter did not fail because it happened to be located in the Highlands. Transport costs and freight charges were not the difficulty. It was not industrial relations or the shortage of good quality skilled labour that caused the closure, but the terms of the power contract made in 1968. The disputed charges alone amounted to £47 million and were a severe financial embarrassment to the company. The Government's best legal advice was that the hydro-electric board had to sue the company in court for the £47 million, because of the construction of the 1968 contract. In addition, there were operating losses at the smelter, and the depressed state of world markets led to low aluminium prices.
It is wrong that hon. Members and people from the Highlands should think that there is something the matter with that part of the world and that industry cannot survive there. Under the same conditions, and governed by the same contractual arrangements, the smelter would have become unstuck anywhere in the United Kingdom. I hope that Opposition Members will at least have the decency to recognise that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) asked the Government to pursue the commitment to the Highlands and Islands Development Board to develop the area of Easter Ross, whatever the outcome of the search for a new operator. We intend to do that. He also asked whether the £10 million was specifically for the Invergordon area, and I confirm that. He will know that the board has power to provide grants and loans to industry in Easter Ross, which is a development area. He will also know that, although the work force must, as my hon. Friend said, be given real hope, it must not be given false hopes about the future.
As has been mentioned, a report today—which I have not seen—implies that a company is coming close to serious discussions and a possible negotiating position. My right hon. Friend was asked who were the nibblers. It is not our purpose to release the names of companies that have expressed an interest. I wish the House to be clear about that. Interest in the smelter has been expressed by one or two companies, but the interest is still distant. No serious discussions or negotiations have taken place, especially about the all-important matter of a long-term power contract.
The Government are as anxious as anybody to bring glad tidings to the people of Invergordon, but it would be utterly wrong, on the basis of the interest that has been shown so far, for anyone to get excited about the prospects of a new operator. We hope that one will emerge, but nothing has happened so far to make anyone in the House or elsewhere think that a deal has been clinched.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The matter is more specific than that. It appears that the Highlands and Islands Development Board held a press conference today, during which it announced that an American company was interested in taking over the aluminium smelter. That goes much further than the Minister has ever gone. We owe it to the people of Invergordon to have this announcement confirmed or denied. Will the Minister deal with that?

Mr. Fletcher: The fact that a company has expressed interest—I shall not repeat what I said about this being the very beginning of negotiations and about it being wrong for anyone to throw his hat into the air—should not be taken as anything more than that. A press conference was held today by the HIDB. It saw fit to hold a press conference to announce that a company was interested. That interest is no warmer because a press conference was held. There is no cause for celebration now, because serious negotiations have still to take place. I hope that the House will understand.

Mr. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I shall not give way again. The position is clear. A company has expressed interest and a press conference was held. The negotiations can only be at the earliest stage and it would be wrong to spend any more time—

Mr. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman should give way.

Mr. Fletcher: If Opposition hon. Members wish to spend more time on this matter, they are confirming my opinion that they are only causing mischief to the people of the Highlands.

Mr. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay) asked about an operator. He will have heard what I said. He asked also about press reports. What is important—and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Inverness and by my hon. Friends the Members for Moray and Nairn and for Argyll—is the use of hydropower in the Highlands. We have always acknowledged that there would be formidable difficulties in drawing up a new power contract. That alone is reason enough for the remarks that I have made about not getting too excited because someone has expressed interest in perhaps becoming an operator of the smelter.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: British Aluminium was receiving its power at roughly half the price paid by other industrial consumers in Scotland. Nevertheless, we are prepared to consider any approach that will produce power at the right price. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said earlier today, if the smelter is to receive power at the right price, either the taxpayer must meet the board's losses or other electricity consumers must be prepared to pay more. I hope that that is a matter to which Opposition Members will address their minds.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: For other United Kingdom smelters the difference in price is being met by other consumers in England and Wales. We are not of the opinion that a new company corning in would wish to become involved in another contract whereby the Government provide what was described in 1968 as a letter of comfort.
We believe that it is highly likely that a new company coming in would wish to have a source of electricity generation—be it coal, nuclear or hydro power or whatever—that would give it confidence in the long-term pricing arrangements of that source of power, because we are obviously talking not about a short-term arrangement but about a long-term arrangement, whoever the new operator may be.
It is important to realise that if we wished to set aside cheap power for the smelter from hydro-electric sources in the Highlands we should have to bring the matter before the House, because we should have to amend the long-standing provision in the hydro board's statutes which prevents it from showing "undue preference" to any consumer or class of consumers. The Government would wish to consider any such change extremely carefully, as indeed would the Opposition. It would require primary legislation, so it would be for the House to decide, taking all of the factors into account.
From the experience at Invergordon, we consider that the additional cost for other Scottish consumers of a hydro arrangement of that kind would be between £15 million and £20 million per year, depending upon the prices charged to the new operator. The sum of £20 million is broadly equivalent to an increase of 2 per cent. in electricity prices for all Scottish consumers, including industrial consumers, who might well have something to say about that. If the additional price were charged only to domestic consumers, it would amount to an increase of about 4 per cent. That is the type of matter that the House would he required to discuss in the event of it being considered possible that hydro power could be made available in that way.
A number of points were raised by hon. Members on both sides, including the situation in the aluminium market, which is highly cyclical. At present, there is surplus capacity in the Western world and, as my right hon. Friend said, countries such as Japan are closing down smelting plant and capacity. We must therefore be realistic, not just with regard to the power contract, but with regard to the world market price for aluminium and when it may improve.
After listening to the speeches from the Opposition, I asked myself just what is the charge against the Government.

Mr. Foulkes: Negligence.

Mr. Fletcher: The charges seem to be that the Government were conned and that we should have disbelieved British Aluminium's claim that unless the 1968 contract was terminated on terms that left the company in balance it was in danger of going out of business altogether, with the loss of a further 2, 700 jobs in Scotland. The company made that clear to us in the closing months of last year.
Apart from the view that Ministers and officials took of that, hon. Members will appreciate that independent advice was taken from outside sources. Yet we are told

that we should have disbelieved the company. According to most of the Opposition speeches, having disbelieved that the company was in financial difficulty and losing money at Invergordon, we should then have written off £47 million of disputed charges and given the company a blank cheque, which would have cost at least £16 million in the first year and would have run until the year 2000.
Multiplying £16 million by the 18 years to the turn of the century, and adding £47 million, one finds that, having disbelieved the company, the. Government are still being asked by the Opposition to provide it with £335 million. That is the charge that the Opposition have sought to level in the debate and outside the House. What they are saying is that we should have disbelieved the BACO, yet we should have paid it this sum of money. That is the economics of the madhouse and we on this side of the House will not accept it.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 303.

Division No. 43]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick


Adams, Allen
Dunnett, Jack


Allaun, Frank
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Alton, David
Eadie, Alex


Anderson, Donald
Eastham, Ken


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey)
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Evans, John (Newton)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Harry


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Fletcher, L. R. (llkeston)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell, lan
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Ginsburg, David


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Graham, Ted


Cartwright, John
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hardy, Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Robin F.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cowans, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Haynes, Frank


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.


Crowther, Stan
Holland, S.(L 'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cryer, Bob
HomeRobertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Homewood, William


Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Horam, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Howells, Geraint


Deakins, Eric
Hoyle, Douglas


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Huckfield, Les


Dewar, Donald
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Dixon, Donald
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dormand, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)






Janner, HonGreville
Rathbone, Tim


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


John, Brynmor
Richardson, Jo


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Allan(Bootle)


Johnston, Russell(lnverness)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson, George


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Kilfedder, James A.
Roper, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lamborn, Harry
Ryman, John


Lamond, James
Sever, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs Renée


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Silverman, Julius


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


McDonald, DrOonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


McNally, Thomas
Stallard, A. W.


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


McTaggart, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McWilliam, John
Stoddart, David


Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Stott, Roger


Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Straw, Jack


Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)
Summerskill, HonDrShirley


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Meacher, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tilley, John


Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Morton, George
Weetch, Ken


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Welsh, Michael


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Newens, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Whitlock, William


Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Park, George
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Parker, John
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Pavitt, Laurie
Woolmer, Kenneth


Pendry, Tom



Pitt, WilliamHenry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr.


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Hugh McCartney.


Race, Reg



NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Bell, Sir Ronald


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)


Ancram, Michael
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Aspinwall, Jack
Best, Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'throne)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert (Presnon N)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John





Blackburn, John
Gorst, John


Blaker, Peter
Gow, Ian


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gray, Hamish


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, Andrew
Grieve, Percy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm 'th N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hannam, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buck, Antony
Hawkins, Paul


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney


Burden, Sir Frederick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Butcher, John
Heddle, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Henderson, Barry


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hill, James


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Churchill, W. S.
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Cope, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Corrie, John
Jessel, Toby


Costain, Sir Albert
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dover, Denshore
Knox, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lee, John


Eggar, Tim
LeMarchant, Spencer


Elliott, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacGregor, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
MacKay, John(Argyll)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marland, Paul


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marlow, Antony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray






Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


May hew, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Silvester, Fred


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Sims, Roger


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moore, John
Sproat, Iain


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Squire, Robin


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stainton, Keith


Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Murphy, Christopher
Stanley, John


Myles, David
Steen, Anthony


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Martin


Needham, Richard
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Neubert, Michael
Stokes, John


Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Nott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Osborn, John
Thompson, Donald


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thorne, Neil(IIford South)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Thornton, Malcolm


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Parris, Matthew
Trippier, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Percival, Sir Ian
Viggers, Peter


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Waddington, David


Pink, R. Bonner
Wakeham, John


Pollock, Alexander
Waldegrave, Hon William


Porter, Barry
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walker, B. (Perth)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walters, Dennis


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Ward, John


Raison, Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Tim
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitney, Raymond


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wickenden, Keith


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 231.

Division No. 44]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert (Preston N)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Bell, Sir Ronald


Aspinwall, Jack
Bendall, Vivian





Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon.W. (Buckingham)
Gorst, John


Best, Keith
Gow, Ian


Sevan, David Gilroy
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Blackburn, John
Gray, Hamish


Blaker, Peter
Greenway, Harry


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, E. (B'ySt.Edm'ds)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Andrew
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brotherton, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Hastings, Stephen


Browne, John (Winchtester)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hawkins, Paul


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Antony
Heddle, John


Budgen, Nick
Henderson, Barry


Bulmer, Esmond
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hicks, Robert


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt HonTerence L.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hill, James


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hooson, Tom


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hordern, Peter


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jessel, Toby


Cockeram, Eric
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Corrie, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Costain, Sir Albert
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Cranborne, Viscount
King, Rt Hon Tom


Crouch, David
Knox, David


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lamont, Norman


Dickens, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Doug las-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Denshore
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lee, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutlad)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Elliott, Sir William
Loveridge, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Macfarlane, Neil


Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacGregor, John


Farr, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fell, Sir Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
McQuarrie, Albert


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Madel, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marlow, Antony


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawby, Ray


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin






Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Richard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Shersby, Michael


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Sims, Roger


Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Moate, Roger
Smith, Dudley


Monro, Sir Hector
Speed, Keith


Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Moore, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sproat, Iain


Mudd, David
Squire, Robin


Murphy, Christopher
Stainton, Keith


Myles, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neale, Gerrard
Stanley, John


Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Martin


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Normanton, Tom
Stokes, John


Nott, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Onslow, Cranley
Tapsell, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Osborn, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Thompson, Donald


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thorne, Neil (IIford South)


Parris, Matthew
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Percival, Sir Ian
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pink, R. Bonner
Viggers, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Waddington, David


Porter, Barry
Wakeham, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waller, Gary


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Ward, John


Raison, Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Tim
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitney, Raymond


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wickenden, Keith


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. Carol Mather.


Shelton, William (Streatham)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Adams, Allen
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Allaun, Frank
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Alton, David
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey)
Campbell, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carmichael, Neil


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.





Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell


Cook, Robin F.
Kilfedder, James A.


Cowans, Harry
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Lambie, David


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lamborn, Harry


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davidson, Arthur
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dormand, Jack
Maclennan, Robert


Douglas, Dick
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnett, Jack
McTaggart, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McWilliam, John


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Maxton, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ewing, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Field, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fletcher, L. R. (IIkeston)
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foulkes, George
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ogden, Eric


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Halloran, Michael


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Ginsburg, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur


Graham, Ted
Park, George


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Pitt, William Henry


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Race, Reg


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Jo


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Homewood, William
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Robertson, George


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hoyle, Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Huckfield, Les
Roper, John


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ryman, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sever, John


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Short, Mrs Renée


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)






Snape, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Soley, Clive
Watkins, David


Spearing, Nigel
Weetch, Ken


Spriggs, Leslie
Welsh, Michael


Stallard, A. W.
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Whitehead, Phillip


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Whitlock, William


Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Straw, Jack
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Winnick, David


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woodall, Alec


Tilley, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Tinn, James



Torney, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Mr. George Morton and


Varley, Rt Hon EricG.
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Wainwright. E (Dearne V)

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, 
That this House deeply regrets the closure of the smelter at Invergordon with the loss of 890 jobs; notes that the power

contract between the British Aluminium Company and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board signed in 1968 became the major factor threatening the future of the entire British Aluminium Company; recognises the need for the prompt action taken by Her Majesty's Government to assist the retention of the remaining 2, 700 jobs in Scotland; and supports Her Majesty's Government in its efforts to find a new operator for the smelter and to attract new industry to the area.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: To save the time of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions to approve Statutory Instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.)

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.

That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.——[Mr Brooke.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Dental School (New Cross)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the future of the school for dental therapists at New Cross. The school lies not in my constituency but in the neighbouring constituency of Deptford. However, I have the full agreement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) to raise the subject on the Adjournment. He and I—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle)—discussed the issue of the school and of dental therapists with the Secretary of State early in November and we were all grateful for the courteous way in which we were received.
On that occasion the Secretary of State undertook to make an early decision about the future of the school at New Cross. He accepted the difficulties which would arise for the director and his staff if his decision were long delayed.
There can be little doubt of the interest and concern that the subject has aroused among hon. Members. Early-day motion 38, in support of dental therapists, was signed by 58 right hon. and hon. Members. My amendment to that motion, in favour of the continued existence of the school for dental therapists, was supported by 68 Members of this House. The abnormal presence of hon. Members at the Adjournment debate this evening is some indication of their interest.
The origin of that concern, both inside and outside the House, lies in the passage in the report of the dental strategy review group entitled "Towards Better Dental Health", published in September last year. Referring to dental therapists, the report seriously questions
the long-term viability of the Group and … concludes that … further entry into this class should be discontinued and the New Cross School closed.
The decision was based on three propositions: that dental manpower has increased; that dental caries among school children and children generally is not as prevalent as it was when the class of dental therapists—or auxiliaries, as they were then called—was first established; and that dentists now take more interest in the treatment of children than they did. It is noteworthy that the review group, in reaching this conclusion, did so without inviting evidence from the New Cross school, and at no time during its deliberations did it visit the school.
I am glad to say that at least the Under-Secretary of State visited the school a fortnight ago and thus made amends for the serious failure to seek evidence from those best qualified to provide it.
The review group appears to ignore, and indeed to contradict, all previous findings about the work of dental therapists and the school which trains them. First, in 1976 the report of the committee on child services, the Court report, was so impressed by their contribution to child dental health that it recommended the establishment in the provinces of two new schools like the New Cross school.
In 1979 the Royal Commission on the National Health Service endorsed the recommendation to increase training

facilities. In 1980 a report on dental education to the Nuffield Foundation called for an increase in the number of auxiliaries in all branches of dentistry.
At present the employment of dental therapists is restricted by law to the community and hospital dental services where they work under the direction of a dentist. They are competent to undertake straightforward fillings, deciduous extractions, cleaning and polishing, the use of all preventive materials and dental health education. It is interesting to note that the Court report and the Nuffield inquiry recommended that their work, far from being phased out, should be extended to all branches of dental services. The review group, which took no evidence from the school, chose to ignore the weighty evidence which I have just described.
I wish to quote Mr. Kenneth Robinson, not least because of the personal regard that I have for him. As Minister of Health he said:
I am confident that the dental auxiliary will make a significant contribution to the improved dental health of our children.
I ask the House particularly to note the following words:
I am sure that one of the best economies we can make is to ensure that all our professional groups exercise the skills for which they are trained and leave to others the lesser skills which require a lesser degree of training."—[Official Report, 15 February 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1717–24.]
I do not know what the Secretary of State will decide, but I shall take the opportunity to get rid of some of the spurious arguments for phasing out the profession and closing the school. First, it has been suggested that health authorities do not wish to employ therapists, but when the 108 health authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were contacted, 60 replied and only three expressed a definite disinclination to employ dental therapists.
Incidentally, the British Association for Dental Therapists says that only 12 health authorities have never employed them. Many health authorities express support for the employment of therapists and state that they are a valuable part of the health service.
It is also interesting that a survey has been conducted amongst dentists to see whether, if the law were changed, they would be in favour of therapists in general practice. No less than 41 per cent. responded that they would be in favour. Surely that is a demand that should not be ignored.
Next, there is the argument in the report that we are not now short of dentists and that, as auxiliaries were trained to fill the gap in the community and hospital service, we do not need them. Apart from the wise words by Kenneth Robinson that I quoted earlier there is an economic argument. Therapists are cheaper—an argument that surely finds favour with the present Government.
The area dental officer for Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham estimates that if his dental therapists were replaced by dental officers the increased annual cost per clinician would be £4, 901. It is also reasonable to compare the cost of training. Figures submitted to the Department covering 1975 show that it cost £36, 427 to train a dentist and £4, 577 to train a therapist. That means that one can train almost eight therapists for every one dentist. Obviously we are talking about different levels of skill and professional ability.
For good measure, the review group also says that dentist training should be longer than it is. Incidentally, the Under-Secretary may have seen figures about recent years which show that the costs have risen. However, 


those figures are erroneous because they do not spread the capital cost of the school over the whole period. There have been exceptional capital costs lately. The Under-Secretary is also bound to disagree with that argument.
Thirdly, it is argued that the New Cross school is isolated and that that is a reason for closing it, and that if dental therapists are needed in future, dental schools will train them. No dental school has yet offered to train therapists and I know of no dental school in the world that does. Indeed, they are unlikely to do so, for the very good reason that it may interfere with their supply of clinical material for trainee dentists.
There could be good legal arguments against those schools wishing or being able to train dental therapists. Section 4(3) of the Dentists Act 1957 states that the arrangements for training ancillary dental workers must not
materially impair the facilities for the training of dental students.
There are grounds for believing that it would be extremely difficult to ensure that they would not do so if they were trained on the same premises.
It is false to argue that there is any necessary merit in training therapists alongside dentists, because the working situation is quite different from the training situation.
No one at New Cross has complained to me about isolation and no one would have complained of it to the review group if it had asked them. It is geographically close to Guy's and King's hospitals and has links with both. Indeed, the closure of New Cross would mean the total loss of expertise, which is unique, and a loss of resources built up over 22 years in the training of therapists.
In a short time, I have come to admire the school and the work that it does and I also wish to pay tribute to the director and the senior lecturer for the assistance they have given me in preparing for the debate. The school has a high reputation, there is no shortage of suitable applicants and the majority of those selected possess more than the minimum entry requirements.
There are currently 567 enrolled dental therapists and all the evidence suggests that the quality of their work and the productivity is good. Enthusiastic support has come from many quarters. The Secretary of State received a letter from the chairman of the Association of Community Health Councils giving strong support for retaining the New Cross school. A headmistress of a nursery school in my constituency writes:
I can vouch for the usefulness of this service, which is really appreciated by both children and parents.
She refers, of course, to the work undertaken by students in training. The school treats about 10, 000 local school children annually. Therefore, the Under-Secretary would have to deduct, from any savings that he hopes to make by closing New Cross, the cost of continuing the school's service in my area.
The review group has made two suggestions which the Secretary of State may be tempted to regard as easy compromises. The first is to close the school but to allow therapists to continue. Let it be quite clear that such a decision must mean the end of the dental therapy classes. It should be a slow rather than a quick death because there is nowhere else that therapy students could benefit from the sort of expertise which the New Cross school possesses.
The other suggestion is that therapists could be encouraged to retrain as hygienists. One therapist said:
If I had wanted to be a hygienist, I would have trained as one, but I wanted to be a therapist.
A therapist has two years' training and a hygienist nine to 12 months, and employment is less of a problem because they can work in general practice.
Women are being asked to accept lower status and pay. It has been suggested that there is an unemployment problem among dental therapists. However, the school informed me that of the 1981 leavers, 30 out of 47 are now employed as dental therapists. That is not a bad position when cuts are imposed on public services and where there is, because of the state of the law, nowhere else they can go as therapists but the community and hospital services.
Before I conclude, I wish to put to the Under-Secretary two questions of which I have given him notice. First, is he satisfied that the lack of consultation by the review group was not the reason for the inconsistencies between its recommendations and those of the three earlier reports that I quoted? Secondly, is he satisfied that the fact that the review group was comprised almost entirely of dentists did not lead to a report which places a great deal of emphasis on safeguarding the interests of general dental practice?
As the Under-Secretary will have noted, the report refers to the concern that
in the near future dentists may not be able to maintain their standard of living and some may even be unemployed".
I do not mean to disparage the report as a whole. It is a laudable document with many welcome recommendations for the improvement of dental services in this country, but it was produced in something of a hurry. The odd thing is that so much that the report says about a preventive strategy, the changes needed in the administration of the service, education and the development of the service, points to an increasing role for the dental therapist in future and not a diminishing one. I hope and trust that the Secretary of State will not make a hasty or irrevocable decision about the future of dental therapists or of the school at New Cross which trains them.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) for the way in which he raised this matter and for giving me notice of the points that he mentioned. I assure him that I shall deal with them.
The debate stems from an important recommendation in a report by the Dental Strategy Review Group—one of the first documents that landed on my desk when I arrived at the Elephant and Castle. I took great care to read it in full. It said that
further entry into this class should be discontinued and the New Cross Training School closed".
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are well aware of the strength of feeling that the recommendation has provoked. More than 600 letters, many parliamentary questions, several deputations and the number of hon. Members present for the debate are ample testimony to that.
I regret that many of the representations that we have received are based on the misconception that a decision to accept the recommendation to close the New Cross school


would mean the end of the dental therapist class. That is not so, and I welcome the opportunity to put that part of the record straight.
The professional status of every qualified therapist is guaranteed by the provisions of the Dentists Act 1957 and as long as a therapist continues on the roll she will be permitted by regulations to continue to undertake the work which the law permits. Many therapists would not retire from active practice until well into the next century. There is also no question of stopping students in training at New Cross from completing their course. Therapists will continue to qualify from New Cross in both 1982 and 1983.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: What about after that?

Mr. Finsberg: Having seen and heard a wealth of comment on the role of dental therapists, I am convinced that they have done work in the community and hospital dental services which is a credit to themselves and to the training school. Hon. Members know that I visited the New Cross school earlier this month and they will not be surprised to hear that I was impressed with what I saw. But the quality of work was never in doubt.
We must face facts, and it is a fact that since it was set up in the early 1960s the New Cross school has trained more than 1, 000 dental therapists, of whom little more than half are currently enrolled with the General Dental Council. Of course, it may be that some have retired temporarily to raise families, but the fact that less than half of those trained with such care as dental therapists are at present employed as such in the whole of the United Kindom is, to my mind, most worrying.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Finsberg: No, I am trying to cover as many points as possible—as the hon. Member for Greenwich asked me to do.
We must also face the fact that the New Cross school is equipped to train up to 60 new therapists each year at a time when many qualified therapists cannot find posts as therapists and when there are very few vacancies. I understand that only 31 of the 54 students who qualified in 1979 are currently employed as therapists. Only 30 of the 49 qualified in 1980 and 30 of the 47 qualified in 1981 have managed to find posts as therapists. I believe that few of the remainder are unemployed, as such, and that many have jobs as dental surgery assistants, while some work as dental receptionists or as secretaries. I suggest that for fully trained dental therapists to find themselves in jobs like those cannot by any stretch of the imagination imply a good or proper use of resources.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: If the hon. Lady will permit me, I am trying to deal fully with the points that were raised.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is not.

Mr. Finsberg: I have not even finished answering what was said. Hon. Members would hear more if they would be kind enough to allow me to answer what has been said.
As I said, we are convinced that there has been and will continue to be an important role for dental therapists in the

NHS. I am, of course, aware that the present role of therapists is limited and that there may be scope in the future for expanding it, but the precise role of dental therapists in future will need careful consideration alongside the role of the other auxiliary grades and dentists. That is a matter that we shall be looking at carefully when we come to make decisions on the new Dental Strategy Review Group report. However, we are convinced in principle that there will be a continuing role for the dental therapist class, and we have been looking at the reports of the Royal Commission on the NHS and the Nuffield inquiry, to which the hon. Member for Greewich referred.

Mrs. Dunwoody: A bit belatedly.

Mr. Finsberg: I am trying to do the hon. Member for Greenwich the courtesy of answering his questions seriatim.
The report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service and the Nuffield inquiry saw a role for dental therapists in the future but pointed out the desirability of training dental therapists alongside dental students and student hygienists and dental surgery assistants. We entirely agree that it is wrong in principle for therapists to be trained in isolation, and that it would be much better if therapists' training in the future were to be arranged alongside that of the other dental professions—probably in several dental schools.

Mr. Spearing: Is that a guarantee?

Mr. Finsberg: I listened carefully, to the views put forward tonight by the hon. Gentleman. As he says, we had intended to announce a decision before the end of 1981, but it was postponed so that I could visit the school and so that we could give the greatest possible consideration to all the issues involved.
However, a decision must be made now—in advance of our decisions on the other recommendations of the dental strategy report—if only to be fair to the staff, students and potential applicants of the New Cross school. Nothing could be worse than the sword of Damocles hanging over them for another year; and a decision is essential by the end of this month if we are to clarify the position of the autumn 1982 intake.
We have decided that the dental therapist class will continue; that its precise role and size will need to be considered further with other aspects of our dental strategy, and that dental therapists should in future be trained alongside other dental professionals. The New Cross school has produced well-trained therapists, but in numbers too great for and not sufficiently sensitive to the demand for their services. The school will therefore be closed at the end of its summer term in 1983. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] We shall, meanwhile, be making arrangements whereby several dental schools around the country can train small numbers, of dental therapists to meet local demand. I cannot be precise at this stage about where the centres will be or what detailed arrangements will be needed, but I can assure the House that several dental schools, at least one in London and others in the provinces, have already shown an interest and willingness in principle to train dental therapists.
I should like to reassure hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), who raised the matter with me—who have


constituency interests in the New Cross area—the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), has made this important point to me—that arrangements will be made to ensure that children's dental health does not suffer because of the closure of the school. I acknowledge that there has been considerable benefit to the child population from the presence of the school in New Cross—a benefit that children in other parts have not been lucky enough to enjoy. The loss of an advantage will naturally be deplored by the loser. However, I understand that the local community dental service has been considering how it would cope if the school closed and it thinks that, given access to the surgery facilities at the school, it will be able to manage well, and that should be possible.
The great majority of the representations that we have received have expressed the gravest concern about the future of the dental therapist class. If the future of the class were assured I feel that the bulk of the objections to closure of the school would disappear. This future is now assured—[Interruption]—though the precise size and scope of the therapist's role are still to be worked out. The Royal Commission and Nuffield reports—as well as many of the professional people who wrote and spoke to us—favoured future training of therapists in dental schools alongside other dental professionals. We also accept that and we shall be looking urgently at the prospects for at least one or two centres to be ready well before the New Cross school closes in 1983.
The closure of the New Cross school is part of a positive strategy for the dental therapist class. I cannot let this occasion pass without, like the hon. Member for Greenwich, paying tribute to the management, staff and students of the New Cross school. It is unfortunate that they should have been providing an excellent training at a time when the demand for their students has been flagging. I assure all concerned at the school—[Interruption]—that everything possible will be done to safeguard their interests.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the composition of the committee. With the benefit of hindsight, which was not available to the chairman and members of the Dental Strategy Review Group, I venture to say that it is a pity that there was not a dental auxiliary member of the group and that before recommendations were made with potentially such serious effects on dental therapists the proposals, reasons and implications could not have been discussed openly with the school management and the British Association of Dental Therapists. However, that was the situation that I found. I do not know—

Mr. Spearing: Why take the advice?

Mr. Finsberg: If the hon. Gentleman listened instead of shouting he would know that I have not accepted the advice. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that.
I do not know whether the recommendations, which of course it was the group's duty to make to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, would have been any different, but misunderstandings might have been avoided

and a consensus might well have been reached that much more quickly. I hope that the exhaustive and meaningful consultation that has taken place since the recommendations reached the Department have to some extent made up for the fact that only the dental profession was represented on the group and the opportunities for taking oral evidence were not more extensive. All the professional deputations that I have seen have expressed themselves satisfied that their point of view was carefully listened to.
In the time available this evening I have not been able to do other than summarise briefly the thinking behind our decisions and to answer—I hope fully—the hon. Gentleman's points. My right hon. Friend and I feel that in view of the very many hon. Members who have written and spoken to us on this issue and the strength of feeling it has aroused we should make a longer statement setting out our thinking in a little more detail. A copy of the statement will be placed in the Library.
That will help the House and the many hon. Members who have written saying that they are unhappy that dental therapists will cease to exist. That has never been the proposal, and it is not what I have said. As hon. Members will appreciate, any proposal to stop training dental therapists would mean primary legislation, and that is not at issue. Our suggestions tonight will benefit the patients, who will be able to look forward to being treated not only by those who have been trained with such dedication and care at New Cross but by the generation from dental schools, who will be part of a dental team. It is impossible to argue that we should take note of Nuffield and the report of the Royal Commission on the NHS, which talk of the need for training as part of a team, and then shout "What about letting them go on in isolation?" That is not right.
What will now happen is that there will be a team approach. There is plenty of time between those who come out in 1983 and the substantial number—about 500—who are available for employment, who can go to the health authorities which the hon. Gentleman says want them. In fact, he did not actually say that they wanted them. He said that very few had said that they did not want them. The fact is that there is not the demand. Year by year, before the Government came to power, the intake at New Cross had been reduced because the school realised that it was unfair to train many more students than could find the opportunity for work.
I suggest that that brings the House to the reality of the situation. I do not believe that it would have been possible to take any other decision that would have been fair in the interests of the children and of the dental profession, including the therapists. The hon. Member for Greenwich, who raised the issue, and who has certainly studied it and has not been jumping up and down making interventions, realises in his heart that the case that I have put is fair and has to be accepted. From the letters that we have received I believe that the overwhelming majority of people who were clearly worried about this will be reassured that the class of therapists is to remain, that those who remain on the roll will be able to go on practising, and that we are making provision with dental schools which, as I have said, have agreed in principle to start the training of therapists as part of a team.
I suggest that that is a positive result and that the House should be very pleased at the outcome.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This has been a very shabby little episode—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half and hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.